PDA

View Full Version : The nation of islam, the Enemy living among us



Pages : [1] 2

Kungfoolss
25th December 03, 04:38 AM
http://www.seventhfam.com/images/top1.gif

Book: The Fall of America

CHAPTER 41

The Day of America’s Downfall

-----------------

1 Allah manifests the fall of America. He desires to make America fall as a warning to her brothers in Europe. White Americans and Germans -- Allah has taught me -- are the most wicked of the white race.

4 Since white Americans, and the white race in general, have deceived the entire world of Black people and their brethren (brown, red and yellow), Allah now is causing these people to wake up and see the white race as it really is -- the created enemy of the darker people.

6 God has taught me that the white race was grafted unalike, and being unalike, it is able to attract the Black man and Black woman, getting them to do all the evil and indecency known to the white race.

http://www.seventhfam.com/temple/books/fall_america/amfall41.htm

**********************

CHAPTER 43

Plagued by God, America is Doomed

------------------------

12 As the Book says to the white race: "As Thou hast done, so shall it be done unto thee."

13 The white man must return to Europe and concentrate on that continent for his future -- or else concentrate on his death instead of his life -- for they can no longer rule the Black man. The Black man now knows where his home is and he now is rising up to take possession of that which is his.

http://www.seventhfam.com/temple/books/fall_america/amfall43.htm

**********************

CHAPTER 44

America’s Doom Feared

-----------------

1 Allah in the Person of Master Fard Muhammad, to Whom praises are due forever, for finding and offering to set us in heaven at once, on our submission to Him entirely!

2 We fear the doom of America that is now cutting her to pieces. The prophecy teaches us that her doom will come in one day -- death and mourning came in one day. One day means one year.

http://www.seventhfam.com/temple/books/fall_america/amfall43.htm

**********************

http://www.seventhfam.com/images/national.jpg

What the Muslims Want

-----------------

10. We believe that intermarriage or race mixing should be prohibited. We want the religion of Islam taught without hindrance or suppression.

These are some of the things that we, the Muslims, want for our people in North America.

-The Honorable Elijah Muhammad

http://www.seventhfam.com/temple/program/want.htm

Meteora
25th December 03, 04:48 AM
Dude that is like totally fucked up.

Kungfoolss
25th December 03, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by Meteora
Dude that is like totally fucked up.

Yes, and the next time you see the liberal media interviewing one of these nuts on TV, you'll know where their true agenda lies.

Osiris
25th December 03, 04:53 AM
Hmm, as far as black "muslims" go, these guys (NOI) arent so bad. Look up the 5 percenters.

Kungfoolss
25th December 03, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by Osiris
Hmm, as far as black "muslims" go, these guys arent so bad. Look up the 5 percenters.

A lovely bunch Osiris ->

A splinter group of the Nation of Islam, "Five Percent" is also known as "Nation of Gods and Earths." That phrase refers to one of the basic tenets of the Five Percent movement: blacks are gods and women are earths. Members are known as "Five Percenters." "Five Percent" refers to the belief that only five percent of all people knows and teaches the truth. Ten percent conspires to hide the truth.

The movement calls itself "a culture" and "a way of life" and rejects being called a religion. It's teachings are referred to as "Supreme Mathematics."


(...) For the Five Percent, education and family are of prime importance. The word "peace" is central to the teachings. The 34-year-old movement rejects drinking, drugs and fornication.

It also rejects most accepted history, authority and organized religion. The black man, the Five Percent teaches, is god.
(...)

They draw in part from the Nation of Islam, such as the teaching that a scientist created the white man from the black man, who in turn tricked the black man into slavery.

Teachings speak of Allah as supreme being. Each man is god only of his own universe, his family, and not of other people.

While only black men are gods, others who accept the knowledge of the Five Percent can become "civilized people."
Source: Prison-based movement stirs debate, Bakerfield Californian, Dec. 5, 1998


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That black people are the original people of the planet earth.

That black people are the fathers and mothers of civilization.

That the science of Supreme Mathematics is the key to understanding man's relationship to the universe.

Islam is a natural way of life, not a religion.

That education should be fashioned to enable us to be self sufficient as a people.

That each one should teach one according to their knowledge.

That the blackman is god and his proper name is ALLAH. Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head.

That our children are our link to the future and they must be nurtured, respected, loved, protected and educated.

That the unified black family is the vital building block of the nation.
Source: The 5% Network (PRO) What We Teach


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Five Percenters are a splinter group that broke away from the Nation of Islam (NOI) in 1964, under the leadership of Clarence "Pudding" 13X. The name is derived from their belief that they are the chosen five percent of humanity who live a righteous "Islamic" life and thereby have manifested the "true divine nature of the black man who is God or Allah." This group rather than the NOI was primarily responsible for disseminating, popularizing and reinterpreting the "Lessons" or teachings of Elijah Muhammad among the adolescent generation of the sixties in the New York metropolitan area. In the twenty-five years since, the influence of The Five Percent Nation or The Nation of Gods and Earths (as they are now known) has grown enormously-many of the lyrics in contemporary rap music make direct reference or strong allusion to Five Percenter ideology.
Source: The Five Percenters: A Teenage Nation of Gods and Earths, by Yusuf Nuruddin. Chapter 5 from "Muslim communities in North America" Albany, N.Y. : State University of New York Press, c1994.

Osiris
25th December 03, 05:05 AM
While youre at it, look up "supreme mathematics" and "supreme alphabet", fucking hilarious.

Kungfoolss
25th December 03, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by Osiris
While youre at it, look up "supreme mathematics" and "supreme alphabet", fucking hilarious.

That's okay, I believe I've learned enough about these guys. Maybe the 5 percenters when they order their robes from the klan, they could get their's dyed black ->



Authentic

Ku Klux Klan Robes

The ultimate novelty item for the politically incorrect looking for a bizarre conversation piece, unusual Halloween costume, or collector's item.

http://www.kkklan.com/costum1.gif

These robes are authentic reproductions. They are a quality made, machine washable, 50/50 cotton/polyester costume. The robes come complete with cape, belt, patch, hood, mask, and hood liner.

The hood liners are adjustable so, unless you have an unusual size head, one size fits all. The mask can be folded up inside the hood for open face wearing. The belt takes in the waist and the sleeves come with adjustable cuffs.

The robes are availavle in sizes: Medium, Large, Extra Large, and Double Extra Large. At present quality polyester/cotton robes are available in the color White: regular Klansman, Red: Titan, Green: Grand Dragon, Yellow: Kleagle, Blue: Klailiff. Black robes and purple robes in polyester/cotton are discontinued until further notice. See below for robes in satin.
Currency.

Make all checks or money orders payable to and mail to: Richard Bondira P.O. Box 162 Kingman, In. 47952 USA.

Allow three to six weeks for delivery. However, we make every effort to get you your robe within three weeks. Sooner whenever possible. If you need your robe by a certain date (like Halloween or Christmas) be sure to order your robe well enough in advance. We do get backlogged with orders from time to time.

Note to foreign customers: You may be required to pay import duty by your country's customs office. All robes are shipped in plain packages and are labeled "Halloween costumes" on the overseas shipping forms.

Knights in White Satin

http://www.kkklan.com/costum2.gif

Satin robes are back! Satin robes look much nicer but must be washed in cold water woolite or dry cleaned. Satin is a more expensive material and harder to work with so these robes cost $125.00 each in the USA and Canada. Indiana residents add 6% state sales tax. Overseas the satin robes are $135.00 US currency. The robes come in the same sizes as mentioned above. When ordering follow the instructions given above and on the front page. Satin robes come in colors: Purple - Grand Wizard, Black - Nighthawk, White - regular Klansman, Red - Titan, Gold - King Kleagle, Green - Grand Dragon, Blue - Klailiff.

http://www.kkklan.com/costume.htm

Osiris
25th December 03, 06:16 AM
Trust me man, supreme math is the punchline to that shit.

manchuria
25th December 03, 08:12 AM
how much would you pay to see a mass scuicide war between muslim extremist terrorists and the klan lol

Stick
25th December 03, 10:35 AM
They should have a lock-in at the rec-center.... that'll solve all their problems!

DANINJA
25th December 03, 10:50 AM
These guys are crazy they say:

"That the blackman is god and his proper name is ALLAH. Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head."

this is an insult to Islamic beleifs and as far as i know many of the things they are saying are big contradictions to Islam.

Nihilanthic
25th December 03, 11:55 AM
"They draw in part from the Nation of Islam, such as the teaching that a scientist created the white man from the black man, who in turn tricked the black man into slavery". <- lmfao

I can't BELIEVE the stupidity from NOI I see all the time. I really want to know who made this up... a joker or someone stoned off his ass? Its obviously an attempt to create racial strife and generally feed off of some fantasy for superiority. Its a crock of shit. Some mad scientist made "white" man who "Tricked" them into slavery... first of all IIRC it was MUSLIM traders who sold slaves to the european merchants, and two supposedly Allah appeared as a human in Boston (or Chicago, I forgot) around... the 1930s. WTF?

The blatant stupidity and race-war fantasy crap going on really makes me wonder just who would willingly join NOI. And if anyone remembers Math class, they can quite easily figure out the majority would win some stupid ass race war, which won't happen ANYWAY. Even worse only a small minority of each racial minority has been polluted by this BS, so at most it would amount to another Waco Texas. I really do wish people could stop being members of some group they were born into and be individuals or be themselves and group up by interest, but that won't happen anytime soon.

And yeah, lets take the KKK and NOI and put them in an arena, UT2K3 style and watch them kill eachother off. While we're at it lets drop some other KKK guys with some ACTUAL Muslim Extremeists in another one. I'd love to see that.

I still stand by my statement that people should move beyond a race-group (or any group) identity. Its stupid and just creates more strife. Its no accomplishment of your own to be born into any group, be it by race or if you were born rich or poor, or male or female. Its just luck of the draw. Come on, Everyone on bullshido is from a wide range of experiences, races, economic backgrounds, and we have members of BOTH genders here, and we don't just adhere to some born identity.

BE INDIVIDUALS. Unless of course you'd like to be spoonfed revisionist BS from NOI or the KKK or Neo Nazis or Wahabists.... or whatever the next cult of the week is. They should teach skepticism and generally agnosticism (not the religious term, just about things in general) in school so people can handle BS like this.

Skummer
25th December 03, 12:55 PM
It should be noted that the NOI is sort of like the Jehovah's Witnesses of islam. They're not regarded highly by their more traditional brethren.

That being said, those mothers are crazier than a gaggle of shithouse rats!!!11

One night a couple of years ago, I was driving around in New Orleans at about 1am. Anyway, this guy wearing a suit and bowtie standing next to the road at a gas station waved me over while I was getting gas. He was NOI and he gave me this magazine-thing about them and their beliefs. I had no idea they believed in UFOs from ancient khemetic civilizations and what not.

According to that thing he gave me, they believe that black people had a highly advanced civilization like 6 million years ago or something. And these guys launched spacecraft that are still in orbit today (ufos). The mother ship is waiting for the right time to smite the evil white man. hehehe.

Their entire religion is an attempt to uplift the perception of their african heritage (remember comba-tai?) with fanciful BS stories. I think instead of teaching made-up faerie tales to their members, they should encourage them to draw pride from their own accomplishments and not try to nutride on their dubious ancestors.

OSliggitySlice
25th December 03, 04:29 PM
Here's a good way to piss off a shitload of Muslims. Climb to the highest tower of the Mosque and shout at the top of your lungs: "ALLAH! ALLAH! OXENFREE!"

By the way, KILL THEM ALL!

JKDChick
25th December 03, 06:16 PM
Fanatics are asshole morons, no matter what their religion.

nihilist
25th December 03, 06:33 PM
Wow, KF, you managed to plug a Klan funding site and try to frighten us with pictures of dangerous "mud people" all in one thread.

What next padre? a site that hawks Nazi collectables?

Osiris
25th December 03, 08:36 PM
Yall know these guys ARENT muslims, right? Nor are they fanatical. They just talk a lot of shit.

Strangler2
25th December 03, 09:16 PM
You must train SCARS or the terrorists win!!!!!!!!

We must all abandon our current archaic arts to persue this new SCARS-system because, apparently, our president endorses it!

Rigante
26th December 03, 01:02 AM
Strangler I have no idea if President Bush knows anything about the SCARS system howecver it appears that the some of the Marine Guard at the White House may. During my level 1 training one of our fellow trainees was a prominent black businessman who the year prior had been invited to the White House to meet with then Presidentl Clinton. While there he was chatting with the officer in charge of the Marine Guard at the White House. When he inquired of the officer where he as a civilian could get the best self defense training the officer told him that their training had been thru the institute and recommended it highly to him. I have no way of verifying if this story is true but the individual did appear to a credible person.

Kungfoolss
27th December 03, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by mike reese
Wow, KF, you managed to plug a Klan funding site and try to frighten us with pictures of dangerous "mud people" all in one thread.


Mud people? Oh dear. :rolleyes:

Kungfoolss
27th December 03, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by Strangler
You must train SCARS or the terrorists win!!!!!!!!

We must all abandon our current archaic arts to persue this new SCARS-system because, apparently, our president endorses it!

Actually, the President does if you comprehend the very basic fundamentals of the system. Duane Dieter on the other hand... :D

nihilist
27th December 03, 03:58 AM
Isn't that what you Klansmen call em' or do I owe you an apology?

Kungfoolss
27th December 03, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by mike reese
Isn't that what you Klansmen call em' or do I owe you an apology?

I would think you owe an apology not necessarily me, but to the members of this forum for being a blatant racist.

JKDChick
27th December 03, 04:25 AM
On a lighter note, you guys knot those "3-D" foam jigsaw puzzles? Where you build buildings and stuff?

Well, there is a 3-D foam Mecca.

The holy city the infidels may not gaze upon ... but their kids can build it out of foam rubber!

McDojo Artist
27th December 03, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by mike reese
Wow, KF, you managed to plug a Klan funding site and try to frighten us with pictures of dangerous "mud people" all in one thread.

What next padre? a site that hawks Nazi collectables?


Somebody said Nazi?
http://www.oldeagle.com/indexeng.html

patfromlogan
27th December 03, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by mike reese
Wow, KF, you managed to plug a Klan funding site and try to frighten us with pictures of dangerous "mud people" all in one thread.

What next padre? a site that hawks Nazi collectables?

Get your Nazi memorabilia on EBay and Yahoo Auctions!

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seminar/internet-client/iands/Sample_Nazi_Auction_2_files/newzzi-img419x253-1004214610b18_19.jpg

Jolly_Roger
27th December 03, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by JKDChick
On a lighter note, you guys knot those "3-D" foam jigsaw puzzles? Where you build buildings and stuff?

Well, there is a 3-D foam Mecca.

The holy city the infidels may not gaze upon ... but their kids can build it out of foam rubber!

:D

JKDC is quite right...I think that the difference between christianity and Islamic fundamentalism boils down to better marketing...

poet
27th December 03, 01:20 PM
Yea how can you sell cars and beer with women in viels???
They need an islamic bikini contest sponsored by coopertone.

nihilist
27th December 03, 02:38 PM
kungfool said: "I would think you owe an apology not necessarily me, but to the members of this forum for being a blatant racist."

I just sold my house to an interracial couple.
I am one of three caucasians at the school where I CHOSE to train.
I am not the one posting advertizements for Klanwear and parading against islam.

Why don't you think on that for a while and see what you come up with.

McDojo Artist
27th December 03, 09:04 PM
Gun control anyone?
http://www.oldeagle.com/shop2/info/shirt7.jpg

Kungfoolss
27th December 03, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by mike reese
kungfool said: "I would think you owe an apology not necessarily me, but to the members of this forum for being a blatant racist."

I just sold my house to an interracial couple.
I am one of three caucasians at the school where I CHOSE to train.
I am not the one posting advertizements for Klanwear and parading against islam.

Why don't you think on that for a while and see what you come up with.

I see, and that somehow justifies your racial slur? Fact of the matter is you exposed yourself as a racist and no amount of spin will ever alter that.

PS. I consider you a waste of my time, therefore this will be my last response to your idiotic posts.


Democratic Hero President Harry S. Truman Exposed as Vicious Bigot

Friday, Aug. 1, 2003 10:07 a.m. EDT

By Carl Limbacher

NEWSMAX.COM - Eight months ago, Democrats and their media friends pulled out all the stops to drive Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott from his post for saying kind words about the presidential candidacy of the late reformed Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond.

Most of these same politically correct crusaders, however, consider Thurmond's erstwhile opponent in the 1948 election, President Harry S. Truman, a genuine civil rights hero - even though in private Truman was a vicious bigot who advocated sending blacks back to Africa and reportedly once belonged to the Ku Klux Klan.

This week, New York Post columnist Eric Fettman reminded us of Truman's penchant for racist outbursts and anti-Semitic diatribes, a facet of the 33rd president's character that the media have spent the last 50 years working overtime to cover up. Noted Fettman, "Truman had repeatedly referred to New York as a 'kike' town, complaining that of its 8 million people, '7,500,000 of 'em are of Israelitish extraction,'" More bon mots from Democrat icon Truman: "All the goddamn New York Jews" should "just shut their goddamn mouths."

Actually, another Truman quote overlooked by Fettman was even more offensive. In letters written to his wife, Bess, the then-27-year-old future president proclaimed, "I think one man is as good as another so long as he is honest and decent and not a n----r or a Chinaman." Though he was later credited with desegregating the military, Truman believed privately that blacks and other non-white racial groups should leave America, explaining, "I am of the opinion that Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe." After he entered politics, Truman briefly joined the Ku Klux Klan and reportedly used the "N" word in stump speeches.

Despite his public record of support for Israel and sympathy for blacks, Truman apparently clung to his racist beliefs during and after his White House years. Martin Luther King, for instance, was labeled a "troublemaker" by the Democats' first civil rights hero. According to Fettman, Truman once boasted a la Lester Maddox that if anyone tried to stage a sit-in at a store he owned, he'd gladly kick them right out. Truman apparently feared one element of racial integration in particular, once asking a reporter, "Would you want your daughter to marry a Negro?"

None of this apparently fazes NAACP President Kweisi Mfume, who praises the anti-black Democrat in a forward for a new book on Truman, saying his "bravery and dogged determination [on civil rights] opened many doors and forever changed the course of history." Truman's full record on race is worth keeping in mind the next time the media go into apoplexy when a Republican utters a racial faux pas.

http://www.yer.us/politics/democrat_hero_truman_exposed_as_vicious_bigot.shtm l

Stick
28th December 03, 12:31 AM
Yes, what an enjoyable and light-hearted thread this has turned out to be, what?

I still say the best way to settle the differances between the klan/neo-nazis and noi/black-panthers is to just get one giagantic YMCA and lock 'em in over night. They can play games, do puzzles, swim in the pool, or just kick it in the lounge with marshmallos and ginger-ale.

Or, ya know, totally kill each other off.......

MiloNYC
28th December 03, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Kungfoolss
n----r or a Chinaman
Interesting how the article censored one slur but not another.

Hedgehogey
28th December 03, 12:38 AM
Fuck you both. The black panthers were one of the best things to happen to this godforsaken country. I can't judge these new panthers cause i've never met them, but if they honestly try to walk in the original panthers footsteps the same way the new zapatistas follow the old then they are cool.

And quit being an uncle tom, osiris. These two whiteboys are laughing at any kind of black cultural self determination.

From the antiwhiteboy halfwhiteboy

Stick
28th December 03, 12:44 AM
Sorry hedge, I just don't like being thought of us "the man".

I suppose I shouldn't say too much about the Panthers, really don't know much about them.

Also, come on, the lock-in is a great idea! It worked for the crips and bloods.

nihilist
28th December 03, 12:54 AM
The "slur" was in the context of calling you out as a closet bigot.

I found your entire thread to be a veiled attempt at racial profiling and then, what do ya know, the klan shows up.

Instead of trying to turn the spotlight on me, why don't you make a case for yourself, cause right now, it's not lookin' too good for you.

MuayThaiBri67
28th December 03, 03:44 AM
Mike Reese stated - Why don't you think on that for a while and see what you come up with.

1) Kungfoolss was making fun of the Klan trying to sell its custumes for Halloween. Not endorcing them. If he was then please post his statment on that.

2) If him showing what these so called nice Islamic groups are up to in the U.S. is parading against Islam then I'll be the first to shake his hand. Because the news certainly isn't reporting it.

nihilist
28th December 03, 03:54 AM
Ok, your right, KungFoolss is a great guy and so is his non-racist hero Rush Limbaugh.

Let's move on, shall we?

nihilist
28th December 03, 04:10 AM
No, fuck that. Here's a quote from our friend Kungfoolss:

"I believe the officers involved with this recent incident and the Rodney King arrest, acted defensively, hence, the actions of the officers should surprise no one."

I'll post more as I find em'.

nihilist
28th December 03, 04:52 AM
"I'm Proud not to be some Damn hyphenated American." -Kungfoolss 2002

You mean like some"damn African-American?" Or Asian-American?

Here you can hear KF advocate murdering civilians that might be "terrorists":
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=testing12345703&msg=50.1

There are endles joyful references on his website to martial artists getting injured and killed.
Defend him if you want, it's up to you.

MrMcFu
28th December 03, 08:10 AM
Mike,
Give it up, KFS is un-american as they come. Damn hyphenated americans. Okay his politics are whack, but it's his relutence to debate things which is truly annoying. However, he used to find really good news articles, plus when he wanted to, he could provide some truly insightful self defense solutions. Oh well. You can't win a pissing contest with a prick.

McDojo Artist
28th December 03, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi
Sorry hedge, I just don't like being thought of us "the man".

I suppose I shouldn't say too much about the Panthers, really don't know much about them.

Also, come on, the lock-in is a great idea! It worked for the crips and bloods.

Watching Conan O´Brien huh?
Damn Tarantino sure sucks.

MuayThaiBri67
28th December 03, 11:06 AM
This is great. I'm glad Kungfoolss started posting again. Its so funny to read some of these posts, and see how some just totally lose it. Is that smoke coming out of your ears?

patfromlogan
28th December 03, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by MuayThaiBri67
This is great. I'm glad Kungfoolss started posting again. Its so funny to read some of these posts, and see how some just totally lose it. Is that smoke coming out of your ears?

Well, just like early period Jamoke (I loved those 'fights' with PD), he does get things going. It's just sad that he is a disingenuous fuck wad.

http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/newforms/small.gif


http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/newforms/pancake.jpg

http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/newforms/amos.jpg

nihilist
28th December 03, 12:20 PM
Thanks guys.
I always get into it with guys like him (there's one on every board)

The last guy was of the opinion that the civil war wasn't based on slavery.

I'm a sucker for trolls.

and maybe I had too much sake last night.

Merry frickin'christmas.

Rigante
28th December 03, 01:42 PM
Saying that the Black Panthers were one of the best things for this country is equivalent to saying the white supremacists in northerin Idaho are the best thing for the state. Racism is racism and it applies equally both ways.

MuayThaiBri67
28th December 03, 02:16 PM
quote:
Mike Reese stated - The last guy was of the opinion that the civil war wasn't based on slavery.

Actually the Civil War was over states rights. the first signs of an impending civil war would go back to 1808. But I do agree that slavery was the trigger issue. Woops we are getting off topic here.

Osiris
28th December 03, 02:29 PM
Hedge, the NOI and moreso the 5%ers are an embarrasment to the black community. They ARE white supremecism. And no, thats not a typo. That type of thinking is whats responsible for the problem in the first place. White supremecsim in blackface will NOT save the black community.

On the other hand, the Black Panther fucking rock.

MuayThaiBri67
28th December 03, 02:39 PM
I agree. The black panther is a neat look cat, but still like the tiger a little better

Meteora
28th December 03, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by MuayThaiBri67


Actually the Civil War was over states rights. the first signs of an impending civil war would go back to 1808. But I do agree that slavery was the trigger issue. Woops we are getting off topic here.


No it wasn't even that, it was because the south broke off from the union.

And the freeing of the slaves was a war stradgey to get the south's work force (mostly black slaves) to riot.

Kungfoolss
28th December 03, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Meteora
No it wasn't even that, it was because the south broke off from the union.

And the freeing of the slaves was a war stradgey to get the south's work force (mostly black slaves) to riot.

Actually, Bri's correct. States rights was the purpose of the south's secession. Read the National Park Service article below.

What Caused the Civil War?
Gettysburg National Military Park Kidzpage

(Fort Scott National Historic Site)

There were many reasons for a Civil War to happen in America, and political issues and disagreements began soon after the American Revolution ended in 1782. Between the years 1800 and 1860, arguments between the North and South grew more intense. One of the main quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This tax was called a tariff. Southerners felt these tariffs were unfair and aimed toward them because they imported a wider variety of goods than most Northern people. Taxes were also placed on many Southern goods that were shipped to foreign countries, an expense that was not always applied to Northern goods of equal value. An awkward economic structure allowed states and private transportation companies to do this, which also affected Southern banks that found themselves paying higher interest rates on loans made with banks in the North. The situation grew worse after several "panics", including one in 1857 that affected more Northern banks than Southern. Southern financiers found themselves burdened with high payments just to save Northern banks that had suffered financial losses through poor investment.

In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal government, centered in Washington, D.C., was changing. Northern and mid-western states were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. Southern states lost political power because the population did not increase as rapidly. As one portion of the nation grew larger than another, people began to talk of the nation as sections. This was called sectionalism. Just as the original thirteen colonies fought for their independence almost 100 years earlier, the Southern states felt a growing need for freedom from the central Federal authority in Washington. Southerners believed that state laws carried more weight than Federal laws, and they should abide by the state regulations first. This issue was called State's Rights and became a very warm topic in congress.

(Library of Congress)
Another quarrel between the North and South and perhaps the most emotional one, was over the issue of slavery. America was an agricultural nation and crops such as cotton were in demand around the world. Cotton was a plant that grew well in the southern climate, but it was a difficult plant to gather and process. Labor in the form of slaves were used on large plantations to plant and harvest cotton as well as sugar, rice, and other cash crops. The invention of the Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney made cotton more profitable for southern growers. Before this invention, it took one person all day to process two pounds of cotton by hand, a slow and inefficient method. Whitney's Cotton Gin machine could process that much within a half hour. Whitney's invention revolutionized the cotton industry and Southern planters saw their profits soar as more and more of them relied on cotton as their main cash crop. Slaves were a central part of that industry.

(Library of Congress)
Slavery had been a part of life in America since the early colonial period and became more acceptable in the South than the North. Southern planters relied on slaves to run larger farms or plantations and make them profitable. Many slaves were also used to provide labor for the various household chores that needed to be done. This did not sit well with many northerners who felt that slavery was uncivilized and should be abolished. They were called abolitionists and thought that owning slaves was wrong for any reason. They loudly disagreed with the South's laws and beliefs concerning slavery. Yet slavery had been a part of the Southern way of life for well over 200 years and was protected not only by state laws, but Federal law as well. The Constitution of the United States guaranteed the right to own property and protected everyone against the seizure of property. A slave was viewed as property in the South and was important to the economics of the Southern cotton industry. The people of the Southern states did not appreciate Northern people, especially the abolitionists, telling them that slave ownership was a great wrong. This created a great amount of debate, mistrust, and misunderstanding.

John Brown
(Library of Congress)
As the nation grew in size, so did the opportunities for expansion westward. Many felt that slavery should be allowed in the new territories such as Kansas and Missouri, while others were set against it. This led to "bleeding Kansas", a bitter war that pitted neighbor against neighbor. In 1859, a radical abolitionist from Kansas named John Brown raided the Federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, in the hopes of supplying weapons to an army of slaves that would revolt against their southern masters. A number of people were taken hostage and several killed, among them the mayor of Harpers Ferry. Brown was cornered with several of his followers in a fire engine house, first by Virginia militia and then by Federal troops sent to arrest him and his raiders. These troops, commanded by Colonel Robert E. Lee, stormed the building and captured Brown and several of his men. Brown was tried for his crimes, found guilty, and hung in Charlestown. Though John Brown's raid had failed, it fueled the passions of northern abolitionists who made him a martyr. It was reported that bells tolled in sympathy to John Brown in northern cities on the day he was executed. This inflamed passions in the South where southern leaders used the incident as another reminder how little the South's interests were represented in Federal law, labeled as sympathetic to runaways and anti-slavery organizations.

Abraham Lincoln
The debate became very bitter. Southern politicians outwardly charged that their voices were not being heard in congress. Some Southern states wanted to secede, or break away from the United States of America and govern themselves. Emotions reached a fever pitch when Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860. He was a member of the Republican Party and vowed to keep the country united and the new western territories free from slavery. Many Southerners, who were Democrats, were afraid that Lincoln was not sympathetic to their way of life and would not treat them fairly. The growing strength of the Republican Party, viewed by many as the party friendly to abolitionists and northern businessmen, and the election of the party's candidate was the last straw. Southern governors and political leaders called for state referendums to consider articles of secession. South Carolina was the first state to officially secede from the United States soon after the election and they were followed by six other Southern states. These states joined together and formed a new nation which they named the Confederate States of America. They elected Jefferson Davis, a Democratic senator and champion of states rights from Mississippi, as the first president.

On April 12, 1861 the Confederate States of America attacked Fort Sumter, South Carolina. The fort sits at the entrance to Charleston Harbor and was manned by Union troops who flew the United States flag. The bombardment lasted many hours and the fort was heavily damaged, though no one was killed or injured. Major Robert Anderson surrendered the fort and its garrison to the Confederate commanders. Now that open conflict had started, President Lincoln responded with a call for volunteers from states still loyal to the Union, to enlist and put down this treacherous act of rebellion. Alarmed that Lincoln would do this, four more Southern states seceded and joined the Confederacy. The war that President Lincoln had tried to avoid began anyway. War talk was on everyone's lips and sharp divisions took place, even among families and neighbors.

At first, no one believed the war would last very long. Some people said it would take only a few months and the fellows who volunteered to fight would come home heroes within a few weeks. No one realized how determined the South was to be independent, nor did the South realize how determined the North was to end the rebellion. Armies had to be raised in the North and the South, and every state was asked to raise regiments of volunteers to be sent for service in the field. Many young men chose to enlist and volunteered for military service. In the South, men readily went to war to protect their homes and save the Southern way of life. Most did not believe that the government in Washington was looking out for the South's interests and they were better off as a new nation where the states would make up their own laws. Many were happy to be called rebels because they thought they were fighting against a tyrant like their forefathers did against the British during the American Revolution. Northern men volunteered to put down the rebellion of southern states and bind the nation back together. Most felt that the Southerners had rebelled without good cause and had to be taught a lesson. Some also felt that slavery was an evil and the war was a way abolish it.....

http://www.nps.gov/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

Meteora
28th December 03, 05:51 PM
Well obivously, but war wasn't offically declared till they broke off.

Kungfoolss
28th December 03, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Meteora
Well obivously, but war wasn't offically declared till they broke off.

I'm afraid that's incorrect. If that were indeed true, how do you explain the secession of 7 states, South Carolina (December 20, 1860), Mississippi (January 9, 1861), Florida (January 10, 1861), Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas months prior to the first shots fired by Conferate forces on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter. The attack on Fort Sumter forced President Lincoln to call upon the Union to supply 75,000 troops, this then prompted 4 addtional states to follow in suit of the previous 7, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina all seceding.

So no, war wasn't declared until after the attack and capture of Fort Sumter and not necessarily because of secession.

Timeline-

1860 Dec, 1861 Jan - 7 states secede

1861 April 12- Conferate attack and capture of Fort Sumter

1861 April 15- President Lincoln calling for 75,000 militiamen

1861 April 17, May - 4-more states secede

Southpaw
28th December 03, 08:44 PM
The NOI and the 5%ers should not be mentioned in the same thread as Black Panthers...as Osiris pointed out...they are two different things.

On a side note, John Brown is an American Hero. History books make him out the be a lunatic because 'what kind of man would fight the federal gov't on account of some Negros'.

Osiris
28th December 03, 09:30 PM
Amp is correct.

nihilist
28th December 03, 09:30 PM
How did I know klanfool would jump up and say that the civil war was not about slavery??

All one has to do is read each states declaration of secession, which refers to the slaveholding states( Themselves) and the non slaveholding states (everybody else)

Yeah, it was about states rights alright; the states rights to treat human beings as animals.

Declarations of secession:

South Carolina (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=4&q=http://extlab1.entnem.ufl.edu/olustee/related/sc.htm&e=747)

Mississippi (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://extlab1.entnem.ufl.edu/olustee/related/ms.htm&e=747)

Texas (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=7&q=http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp&e=747)

Georgia:"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

patfromlogan
29th December 03, 11:04 AM
http://www.kstatecollegian.com/ISSUES/v100/FA/n063/cam-bobby-zytkow.html
http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com/new_pagebpphistorymonth_1.htm
The Black Power movement of the 60s was a great event.

http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com/images/panther_march1.gif

http://www.kstatecollegian.com/ISSUES/v100/FA/n063/PIX/black.panther.gif

To the youngsters who weren't around, this was the BEST Olympic moment.

http://www.hippy.com/archives/blackpower.jpg

Rigante
29th December 03, 11:13 AM
Extolling the virtues of a racist organization such as the black panters is by extension supporting racism itself. If that is what you want then dont bitch and moan if you ever face discrimination yourself. By acting in such a manner you are part of the cause and not part of the solution.

Freddy
29th December 03, 12:08 PM
Who was that one white member of the Black Panther? I remember seeing that in some documentry.

Rigante
29th December 03, 12:26 PM
So Patfromlogan you oppose fascism but promote racism. This smells strongly of hypocrisy here.

patfromlogan
29th December 03, 01:28 PM
Naw, I just know something about the Black Panther Party.

http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com/images/bpphistorymonthposter.gif

and who are these girls?

http://blacktimes.gq.nu/1963.jpg

and why did this guy kill them?

http://blacktimes.gq.nu/cherry.jpg

Osiris
29th December 03, 02:10 PM
"Extolling the virtues of a racist organization such as the black panters is by extension supporting racism itself. If that is what you want then dont bitch and moan if you ever face discrimination yourself. By acting in such a manner you are part of the cause and not part of the solution."

Yet, I hear people praise the government all the time with no one claiming that they support racism. No, the panthers werent saints, but they were what was needed. Someone needed to let it be known that black power and black liberation is not a game and that should you oppose it, someone would be around to kill you. Its not so much about racism as it was about self defense. The truth of the matter is that in general white people WERE the enemy and had been behaving as such for centuries. Thats real. All the quasireligious, psuedoscientific, blatantly racist nonsense of the NOI and the like is bullshit, but centuries of oppression is not.

Kempocos
29th December 03, 03:31 PM
OSIRIS you are correct in the 60's the Panthers were neeed. I feel some like LOUIS FARAKN and NOI are as bad as the KKK were. Truth is as many blacks were inslaved by blacks as white. The slaves that were brought to America in may cases were bought from the black tribes who won the battle. It is a fact that slavery was a way of the world until AMERICANS said enough. There were slaves of all colors around the world. Today many will say thier is racism, I do not belive it is as many will say. I feel that is more of a MONEY thing. If you apply your self you can have what ever you want.

Osiris
29th December 03, 03:38 PM
"I feel some like LOUIS FARAKN and NOI are as bad as the KKK were."

I wouldnt say that theyre THAT bad, but yeh, their rhetoric needs to go.

"Today many will say thier is racism, I do not belive it is as many will say."

It wasnt. The primary motive was economic.

However, the reasoning behind slavery and who else was responsible disntchange the situation of blacks oppressed directlyt by america.

patfromlogan
29th December 03, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Kempocos
It is a fact that slavery was a way of the world until AMERICANS said enough.

Didn't the British, French, Portugese and others ban slavery many years before the US?

John A Butz
29th December 03, 03:54 PM
Pat, you are correct. America was far behind the European nations when it came to abolishing slavery.

Kempocos
29th December 03, 04:36 PM
Then I stand corrected.

nihilist
29th December 03, 09:48 PM
I have heard that the southerner's mindset hasn't changed all that much.

Southpaw
29th December 03, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Kempocos
I feel some like LOUIS FARAKN and NOI are as bad as the KKK were.

hmmm...how many people have the NOI lynched?


Though I will agree with you that economics plays a huge part in why people are racist...or had slaves.

Southpaw
29th December 03, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by mike reese
I have heard that the southerner's mindset hasn't changed all that much.

What a fucking moron.

Let me tell you the difference between racism in the North and South.


Southerners will call a person a nigger to their face.

Northerners will call a person a nigger behind their backs.

Which is worse?

poet
29th December 03, 10:48 PM
Both.

nihilist
30th December 03, 12:04 AM
QUOTE: What a fucking moron.

Let me tell you the difference between racism in the North and South.


Southerners will call a person a nigger to their face.

Northerners will call a person a nigger behind their backs.

Which is worse?"


Name calling isn't necessary.

Some parts of the world are going forward in time, my friend, If you want to believe that the entire country is comprised of ignorant hillbillies, that's your perogative.

Samuel Browning
30th December 03, 12:36 AM
On the issue of state's rights instead of slavery causing the civil war one word, Bullshit, just read the words of the successionists themselves. For example.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_south_carolina.html

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html

It appears that the material that Kung Fools quoted was placed on line after 2000 but its opening paragraphs indicates it is part of a government agency's efforts to deliver a "non-controversial" version of history that would not upset conservative law makers (think Trent Lott) who over saw this agency's budget. But if the above links aren't enough just tell me. I'll find the declarations by Georgia and some other confederate states in which they don't talk about tarrifs but do talk about their right to possess slaves.

Kungfoolss
30th December 03, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by Samuel Browning
On the issue of state's rights instead of slavery causing the civil war one word, Bullshit, just read the words of the successionists themselves. For example.

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_south_carolina.html

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html

It appears that the material that Kung Fools quoted was placed on line after 2000 but its opening paragraphs indicates it is part of a government agency's efforts to deliver a "non-controversial" version of history that would not upset conservative law makers (think Trent Lott) who over saw this agency's budget. But if the above links aren't enough just tell me. I'll find the declarations by Georgia and some other confederate states in which they don't talk about tarrifs but do talk about their right to possess slaves.




Had you made a conscientious effort in researching the piece rather than engaging in wild speculation and leftist conspircy theories, you would have learned that author, John Heiser, is a Gettysburg Historian with the Gettysburg National Military Park. I believe his creditials speak for themselves, how do yours measure up Sam?

In addition, you can purchase John Heiser's and his fellow historians 90 Minute documentary, BATTLE OF THE WILDERNESS,' that details the first battle of Lee and Grant in 1864.

http://www.civilwarmall.com/bookseller/images/Wilderness.jpg

nihilist
30th December 03, 03:51 AM
Have you nothing to say concerning the declarations of secession, KF?

Of course you don't.

Meteora
30th December 03, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by John A Butz
Pat, you are correct. America was far behind the European nations when it came to abolishing slavery.


amazingly south america wasn't. I think it was like 1880's before the abolished slavery. Also 70% of all slaves sent south america died with in the first 4 years. Of course no one complain's about that or even gives it mention.


A interesting fact also, it was originally british people who started racism. I believe some of their top scientist's came up with somes bogus studies on how white people were better.

Osiris
30th December 03, 08:11 AM
Im sure they complain IN SOUTH AMERICA.

Nihilanthic
30th December 03, 09:08 AM
Ever seen the Tuskeege *spelled right?* Airmen?

MuayThaiBri67
30th December 03, 09:11 AM
mike reese stated -Have you nothing to say concerning the declarations of secession, KF?


As clearly stated before the civil war was over states rights. This is historical fact. Kungfoolss has quoted several resources for you. Slavery was the trigger issue, but not the soul cause of the war. The war was a long time in coming, and that is historical fact as refrenced in the Library of Congress in Kungfoolss previous post. A person isn't racist if they say the war was over states rights. They are stating historical fact. As far as the declarations of secession are concerned. I think it clearly shows that the slavery issue was the last straw for Southerners, but by no means the only problem the South had with the North.

patfromlogan
30th December 03, 11:37 AM
MTB67 - did you bother to look at the links? Here is the 12th line, paragraph three from the Texas paper:

"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."


further on:

"That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations;..."


The actual cause of the Civil War was the invasion of Southern territory by the North. Then the majority of Whites felt justified in fighting, regardless of their emotional or financial involvement in the other issues.

And States rights were actually only important to the slave States. Just as States rights are important here in Utah. Here they'd love to have a nutty little Mormon Kingdom and let the moneyed interests rape all the land. Witness the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion.

Rigante
30th December 03, 12:01 PM
It sounds like people here are saying that slavery was this bad thing that only white men did to black men. Hmmm.... I wonder about the ongoing slavery in Nigeria and Gabon for example. The historical reality is that African blacks profited from selling members of their rival tribes to anyone that would buy them. I am not saying that it was right for anyone to sell or buy slaves, however the blacks were just as guilty as the whites when it comes to slavery. Also the blacks were not the only people that suffered slavery. For example the Romans enslaved the Celtic nations and the British werent much better in their treatment of the Irish. Other examples include the treament of the French in Canada. The list can go on and on. It is time for the blacks in this country to quit whining about the past and move into the future. I realize that many people on this forum will not like what I am saying here, but it is reality not the history reengineered to fit political correctness which is currently rampant.

Osiris
30th December 03, 12:15 PM
No, its just that American blacks are more concerned with the legacy of American slavery. Who else was involved isnt really relevant in dealing with the immediate sitation of blacks in AMERICA.

Kungfoolss
30th December 03, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Osiris
No, its just that American blacks are more concerned with the legacy of American slavery.


Gee, I wonder why...:D

Suit seeks billions in slave reparations
March 27, 2002 Posted: 11:29 AM EST (1629 GMT)

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/LAW/03/26/slavery.reparations/story.paellia.jpg
Farmer-Paellmann: "These are corporations that benefited from stealing people."

From Peter Viles
CNN Money Correspondent

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Attorneys for a former law student, who discovered evidence linking U.S. corporations to the slave trade, filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday that could seek billions of dollars in reparations for the descendants of slaves in America.

Kungfoolss
30th December 03, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by MuayThaiBri67

As clearly stated before the civil war was over states rights. This is historical fact. Kungfoolss has quoted several resources for you. Slavery was the trigger issue, but not the soul cause of the war. The war was a long time in coming, and that is historical fact as refrenced in the Library of Congress in Kungfoolss previous post. A person isn't racist if they say the war was over states rights. They are stating historical fact. As far as the declarations of secession are concerned. I think it clearly shows that the slavery issue was the last straw for Southerners, but by no means the only problem the South had with the North.

Bri, there's no debating lib's that have been brainwashed by the propaganda of the left through their social studies curricula and history revision. Facts and documented resources becomes irrelevant to the emotionally driven. It's clear the left would rather have everyone believe that every confederate soldier that fought in the war between the states did so for the sole purpose of keeping slaves and not for any other cause. As a result, these weak arguments are primarily agenda driven.

For the leftist naysayers, here's another resource for you to chew on. Although, because our US army is a branch of the government, I suppose Sam might say our Proud servicemen's view on history were brought and paid for by conservative interest groups. Therefore, they don't count. My, how paranoia controls some of our lives. ->

Civil War, 1861-1865

For many years, northern and southern United States had been growing farther and farther apart, philosophically, politically and economically. The North was becoming an industrialized society, with immigrants from abroad providing the inexpensive labor for the factories; the South was still an agricultural society, relying on slave labor. Fearing the North's political and economical domination and its growing anti-slavery movement, several southern states threatened to leave the Union. After Abraham Lincoln, a northerner and an anti-slavery man, was elected President in November 1860, South Carolina seceded the next month, followed by ten other states. They established their own country: the Confederate States of America.

Source: The U.S. Army Infantry Homepage - National Infantry Museum

http://www.infantry.army.mil/infantry/index.asp

Osiris
30th December 03, 12:42 PM
Thats one reason. Dont forget that slavery was economically motivated. The other reason though, is that many of the same institutions AND PEOPLE responsible for slavery are still around. People are expected to act as if A. Slavery ended in the 1800's and B. Following its true end, the perpetrators and those complacent with that system just dropped from the earth. Bullshit.

Kungfoolss
30th December 03, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by patfromlogan

And States rights were actually only important to the slave States.

{Laughs) Dear god...:rolleyes:

Kungfoolss
30th December 03, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Osiris
Thats one reason. Dont forget that slavery was economically motivated. The other reason though, is that many of the same institutions AND PEOPLE responsible for slavery are still around. People are expected to act as if A. Slavery ended in the 1800's and B. Following its true end, the perpetrators and those complacent with that system just dropped from the earth. Bullshit.

If it makes your people feel any better, I'll contribute a penny to the cause. ;)


Originally posted by Osiris
The other reason though, is that many of the same ... PEOPLE responsible for slavery are still around.


Wow, really? I'd love to meet some of these individuals and ask them the secret to their longevity.

blankslate
30th December 03, 12:50 PM
The NOI seems to be off base in their message but I'll tell you one thing. In some of the communities they fight back against the drug dealers, unarmed, ways in which a lot of others (including me) don't typically do.

I saw a newstory where they would post some of their "ministers" in drug infested apartement buildings and near crack houses chasing the dealers away and protecting the kids. In one of the clips they grab one of the dealers and throw him on the ground, kicking him and chasing him off. Talk about spreading the "gospel" of Allah.

I thought their actions were courageous in that respect.

patfromlogan
30th December 03, 01:10 PM
Reparations. One of my gardening customers' grandmother lives with them. She and her husband used to own 250 acres of what is now Ventura Blvd. After spending the war years in Topaz, they eventually got $10,000 for their property. Seems real fair to me, after all it's worth billions now.

Usual inflammatory straw men arguments being created by KFLSS.

Saying get over it and get on with life assumes for one, that this shit as stopped. Perhaps the lesson that discrimnation is wrong should be backed up by financial pain.

For instance:
How about Black WW2 vets that were denied the GI bill? Many of them are still alive? Does anyone owe them anything? After all, they would have made lots more money except for racial discrimination.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2005/n3_v31/20574138/print.jhtml

How about the odious neglect of 500,000 Mexican-American WW2 vets by the VA and their medical establishment? If a Chicano WW2 vet could document obvious neglect that caused harm, should he get anything? If your veteran father was beaten, framed and sent to prison by the racist Texas Rangers, should he or your family get any compensation?

http://aztlan.net/default4.htm http://aztlan.net/grunts.htm




And Rigante (by the way, I'm not Nigerian), me and the Pogues are still mad at the British!

You have robbed our homes and fortunes
Even drove us from our land
You tried to break our spirit
But you'll never understand
The love of dear old Ireland
That will forge an iron will
As long as there are gallant men
Like young Ned of the hill

A curse upon you Oliver Cromwell
You who raped our Motherland
I hope you're rotting down in hell
For the horrors that you sent
To our misfortunate forefathers
Whom you robbed of their birthright
"To hell or Connaught" may you burn in hell tonight



And should US corporations that made millions off of the Nazis be liable? How about German corporations that proffited from slave labor? How about my personal fave (See Piz's Thread for pat)?

nihilist
30th December 03, 01:23 PM
"Trigger issue" my ass.
All states have rights issues with the feds. The civil war never would have happened if we let them keep humans as pets. No amount of carefully selected bullshit will make me believe otherwise.

Those inbred freaks down there would STILL be slave masters if they could.

And yes, you ARE racist if you think that slavery didn't have everything to do with it.

Did you even read the declarations of secession?

I would like some commentary on that if you have the balls.

Samuel Browning
30th December 03, 03:01 PM
Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
Mississippi

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.




Sources:
Library of Congress
"Journal of the State Convention", (Jackson, MS: E. Barksdale, State Printer, 1861), pp. 86-88

Freddy
30th December 03, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Osiris
The other reason though, is that many of the same ... PEOPLE responsible for slavery are still around.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think what he meant is that many of the decendents of families that profitted from slavery still have monies (profits)made from someone elses misery.

Osiris
30th December 03, 03:17 PM
In my opinion discrimination and segregation were merely another face of the same system of slavery.

Kempocos
30th December 03, 03:25 PM
History aside do you believe that today there is the same degree of discrimination?

Osiris
30th December 03, 03:28 PM
Not at all. There is A degree of discrimination, but nowhere near the level that there has been.

Samuel Browning
30th December 03, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Kungfoolss
Bri, there's no debating lib's that have been brainwashed by the propaganda of the left through their social studies curricula and history revision. Facts and documented resources becomes irrelevant to the emotionally driven. It's clear the left would rather have everyone believe that every confederate soldier that fought in the war between the states did so for the sole purpose of keeping slaves and not for any other cause. As a result, these weak arguments are primarily agenda driven.

For the leftist naysayers, here's another resource for you to chew on. Although, because our US army is a branch of the government, I suppose Sam might say our Proud servicemen's view on history were brought and paid for by conservative interest groups. Therefore, they don't count. My, how paranoia controls some of our lives. ->

Civil War, 1861-1865

For many years, northern and southern United States had been growing farther and farther apart, philosophically, politically and economically. The North was becoming an industrialized society, with immigrants from abroad providing the inexpensive labor for the factories; the South was still an agricultural society, relying on slave labor. Fearing the North's political and economical domination and its growing anti-slavery movement, several southern states threatened to leave the Union. After Abraham Lincoln, a northerner and an anti-slavery man, was elected President in November 1860, South Carolina seceded the next month, followed by ten other states. They established their own country: the Confederate States of America.

Source: The U.S. Army Infantry Homepage - National Infantry Museum

http://www.infantry.army.mil/infantry/index.asp

Interesting post Kung Fools but what is happening here is that the Army is downplaying the primary issue of slavery in causing the civil war. It gets tucked in the back of the list of rather in the front as the primary cause of succession. I thought by offering several of these state declarations I was providing documentary evidence concerning what motivated the southern political decision makers of the day, however am I to take the words of historians over the professed motivations of the people on the ground? Perish the thought! Its like when the cheating husband says to his wife, "who are you going to believe, me, or you're lying eyes?" Now I can't say that every Southern soldier fought for the sole purpose of retaining slavery but I'd say that a strong majority fought to retain slavery, with a perceived loyalty to their state coming in second (and occasionally first place as a motivator).

I don't believe that the army wants to make waves on racial issues. One sociologist James W. Loewen points out in his book "Lies My teacher Told Me" that even in the high school history text books of the day racism is removed from the story line as much as possible though now even the majority of these texts admit slavery was the primary cause of the war. To quote Loewen (who has also co-written a good textbook on Mississippi state history "Before the civil rights movement, many textbooks held that almost anything else--differences over tarriffs and internal improvements, blundering politicians, the conflict between the agrarian South and the Industrial North--caused the war. This was a form of Southern apolgetics. Among the twelve textbooks I reviewed, only 'Triumph of the American Nation', a book that originated in the 1950s, still holds such a position." (p. 141)

Samuel Browning
30th December 03, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Kungfoolss
Had you made a conscientious effort in researching the piece rather than engaging in wild speculation and leftist conspircy theories, you would have learned that author, John Heiser, is a Gettysburg Historian with the Gettysburg National Military Park. I believe his creditials speak for themselves, how do yours measure up Sam?

In addition, you can purchase John Heiser's and his fellow historians 90 Minute documentary, BATTLE OF THE WILDERNESS,' that details the first battle of Lee and Grant in 1864.

http://www.civilwarmall.com/bookseller/images/Wilderness.jpg

Well Kung Fools I can read a primary document produced by a Southern State and recognize it's importance. This appears to put me one up on John Heiser :)

patfromlogan
30th December 03, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Kempocos
History aside do you believe that today there is the same degree of discrimination?

Ofcourse things have improved. There aren't any slaves in the US, for one thing. But racism is disgusting and needs to be fought on every level.

I went to a dojo in Monticello Arkansas when I was visiting my grandmother and there were only whites in it. One of the bb told me that they didn't like negroes. I left.

Here in Utah misegination (marriage between races) was against the law until 1961. Utah was a slave territory. The misegination laws originated back aroun 1670 in the South in order to insure the slave population wouldn't marry out of slavery. Racism was promoted to protect the income of the establishment. Also it helped maintain the powere base for hundreds of years. As the poor whites, who were getting ripped off by the system could always be told "Atleast you have it better than those worthless Blacks."

The couple who's elderly grandmother (great actually) lives with them that I sited are a white guy and an Asian woman. They couldn't even get married in Utah in 1960. They had to go to Idaho (also known as Bastion of Liberalism). Then the next year an Eccles family zillionaire kid (1st Sec. Bank, Utah Mort., etc) fell for a Japanese gal on his Morman mission and his family pushed it thru the legislature to get the racist law off the books.

Examples of horrific institutionalized racism are very recent in US history. When I was young there were still white and colored drinking fountains. I can remember when there were no Blacks on TV ads and very few on any shows (Amos and Andy being the only exception that I can recall).

And I forget, Kempocos, do you really look like an irate Samoan?


http://stop-the-hate.org/ is a good anti-racist site.
http://www.antiracistaction.ca/store/button1.gif
http://www.antiracistaction.ca/store/followleaderpin.jpgare from http://www.antiracistaction.ca/store/index.html

Southpaw
30th December 03, 10:29 PM
The historical reality is that African blacks profited from selling members of their rival tribes to anyone that would buy them.

The historical reality is that 'slavery' as Africans knew it was VERY different than American slavery. Most slavery around the world was.

The arguement that a handful of 'African blacks' "profited" from selling members of their rival tribes is just shameful. What was the profit? Do you think that if these chiefs refused to sell slaves to the europeans that slavery wouldn't have happened? Or not been so brutal? Or not have such a lasting psychological and economic impact?

"They seize numbers of our free or freed black subjects, and even nobles, sons of nobles, even the members of our own family."
Excerpt from letter from Affonso, King of Congo, to King of Portugal João III, 18 October 1526.

The VAST majority of American slaves weren't just 'rival tribes' that were sold to 'anyone'.

Here's that same arguement in a different context.
....American Indians are just as guilty at as the governement in the extermination of Native Americans. Hell, some chiefs were allowed to live, and given blankets to inform on other tribes which were than slaughtered.


the blacks were just as guilty as the whites when it comes to slavery.

I'm in fucking shock here. That is ridiculous.

MuayThaiBri67
30th December 03, 10:32 PM
mike reese stated -"Trigger issue" my ass.
All states have rights issues with the feds. The civil war never would have happened if we let them keep humans as pets. No amount of carefully selected bullshit will make me believe otherwise.

Those inbred freaks down there would STILL be slave masters if they could.

And yes, you ARE racist if you think that slavery didn't have everything to do with it.

Did you even read the declarations of secession?

I would like some commentary on that if you have the balls.


Mike, I think your getting way to emotional over this. But I'll answer your questions one by one.

1) As far as inbreding goes, this is a stereo type about people in the south. Everyone knows inbreding goes on in West Virginia (a Norhtern state). Did you know the highest membership for white supremecy groups is in Maryland, Minnesota, and Utah (hardley the South).

2) As clearly stated in my previous posts, I have said and will say again slavery was not the only issue this is historical fact (look it up). Slavery was the trigger issue that started the war, but by no means the only reason. I or Kungfoolss never said slavery had nothing to with it. If I stated that then please show me the post where I stated that. I believe my post stated that slavery was the trigger issue, but not the only cause. I certainly don't think that makes me racist.

3) Yes, I've read the declarations of secession as stated in a previous post. I think they clearly show my point that it was the trigger issue but not the only cause.

4) yes, I do have the balls to answer any of your posts, all I ask is that you take a deep breath and settle down, your going to really stress yourself out over this. Also I would like you to act a little more mature in your posts instead of the rantting your doing. Have you bothered to check any of the historical refrences Kungfoolss has mentioned in his posts? Or does your hatered of the man cloud any reasoning?

Stick
30th December 03, 11:08 PM
Having been born in 82, I have a great deal of trouble with this "this country is still so horrible and racist" drek. I noticed this when patfromlogan said he was old enough to remember seperate drinking fountains, I'm not.

I grew up on army bases surrounded by people of every ethnicity under the sun and was never privy to any of America's apparently blatant and on-going injustices (aside from ya know, our "imperialist" military) against people "of color" (if I could actually see color I'm sure I'd be a nice pinkish thank you very fucking much).

Never having seen any of this first hand, I just get so angry when I have people tell me how evil/fucked-up-biggoted/whatever the country I live in and love is. Sure I here about the shit in the news, what was it last spring there was a segregated prom for the white kids in Alabama or something? I've even met some racist pricks (I should point out the pool of biggots I've known in my life consists rather equally of whites, blacks, asians, and hispanics, assholes are assholes and I've seen 'em in every color), but by far they are no where near the majority of people I've met in life.

It just irks me to no end that apparently my home country is some bastion of racism and I've never seen it other than what's on the bloody news.

Side note, Japan is racist all to hell. People relocate away from me and other gaijin when we sit down on trains, we are denied service at certain facilities (some karaoke bars and and public baths), shp owners eye us or follow us through the store, and no matter how well you speak Japanese to some people they either completely ignore you or spit out some lame "I don't speak English, so sorry".

Even then... ah fuc it.

Not saying America doesn't have problems or that everything is hunky-doory, just that I and I would assume a growing number of the younger generation are having trouble seeing what the older generation saw and either still sees or thinks it still sees. Hopefully in 20 years I'll be able to watch a peace protest on C-SPAN without having every other speach be about how racist America "really" is.

Sorry, just had to get that out.

Osiris
30th December 03, 11:18 PM
Go to the hood and then tell me how nice things are.

Southpaw
30th December 03, 11:20 PM
Dai-Tenshi- I understand where you're coming from, but having been an Army brat myself (born just 9 years before you), I can tell you one thing for sure, Army bases are very different from the real world in so many ways.


Racism exists in the US. Certainly not like the 60's. And we don't have slavery, but it exists.

Samuel Browning
30th December 03, 11:27 PM
Describing slavery as the triggering cause of the civil war seems to miss the point that it was also the main cause of the civil war, handily beating out any other regional differences or tarriffs and taxation. Tarriffs and taxes threatened the union only up until the compromise tarriff of 1833 but slavery produced multiple crises from the Missouri Compromise of 1820, to the entrance of Texas into the union in 1845, to the Wilmont amendment following the American-Mexican war in 1846, the compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857, john brown's failed revolt at harpers ferry in 1859, and then succession in 1860. If one reads the succession statements one sees its writers relating a history of northern aggression against this institution, and not giving equal standing to any of the other potential complaints such as the tarriff controversy 27 years previously. the timeline speaks for itself.

Stick
30th December 03, 11:31 PM
The only "hood" I've been to was full of trailers, hillbillies, and hispanics (Oooooooklahoma where the....). There was one in CO Springs I hung out in a few times, but it just didn't strike me as the sort of hell's kitchen/south-central LA thing movies have been feeding me for years, maybe it was the hood, maybe not.

Nother side note: the most racism I've seen in life I've seen here hanging out with international students...... most of it is just ignorance, although when the arabs start talking about jews..... wellll, anywho.

Also, a Turkish guy just ask me yesterday if we still had seggregation in the states, I was like "no, why do you ask" and he said "well, it's just that your people bitch about it so much on the news, I thought certainly it must still be going on or something". Take from that whatever you want.

nihilist
30th December 03, 11:31 PM
I don't hate Klan fool or anyone else on this board.
When I see someone spreading what I consider to be racist viewpoints I go for the jugular.
My grandfather was a huge bigot who used to say that and I quote "we should take all the N****Rs, G**Ks and SP**Ks and line ‘em up against the wall and shoot ‘em.”
Well let me tell you I had utter contempt for him for that and excuse me if I sound "emotional" when dealing with what I consider to be injustice.
White supremacy groups are comprised of idiots who didn't get enough love at home and if they weren't doing that they would be putting their energy into something just as hateful and destructive.
Quote: I think they clearly show my point that it was the trigger issue but not the only cause.
Why do you keep repeating yourself? If we let them keep slaves, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO CIVIL WAR!
Tell me something, is anyone in the state government of Maryland, Minnesota, and Utah trying to put up a rebel flag?
My only function on this thread is to state my opinion. If I have to scream shout and act like an imbecile to get my point across, so be it.
None of you would be talking about the slavery issue had I not brought it up.
You mentioned historical references. Yes I did read the "white” washed version that he posted.
I prefer to go straight to the sources, rather than believe someone's spin on what they want you to believe really happened.
Those declarations speak for themselves.
I took a deep breath and calmed down but I should warn you that I could go berserk again at any moment.

Southpaw
30th December 03, 11:42 PM
What a spaz.

Samuel Browning
30th December 03, 11:49 PM
No offense mike, but emotionalism doesn't work with Kung Fools he seems to thrive on it.

Kungfoolss
30th December 03, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Samuel Browning
Well Kung Fools I can read a primary document produced by a Southern State and recognize it's importance. This appears to put me one up on John Heiser :)

Uhh...right.

Samuel Browning
31st December 03, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by Kungfoolss
Uhh...right.

Aw Kung, your losing your skill at baiting people and getting to fly off the handle, no lollypop for you this time.

nihilist
31st December 03, 12:03 AM
I guess no one gets my thinly veiled sarcasm...

Kungfoolss
31st December 03, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Kempocos
History aside do you believe that today there is the same degree of discrimination?

Of course there is, only today the self-loathing and America-hating liberals use the euphemism, affirmative action, to justify discrimination against whites.

It is an absolute perversion of Reverend King's dream.

Kungfoolss
31st December 03, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Samuel Browning
Aw Kung, your losing your skill at baiting people and getting to fly off the handle, no lollypop for you this time.

Hardly, there's really no point in debating idiocy.

Samuel Browning
31st December 03, 12:12 AM
Nice try, but you didn't even address the contents of the succession statement I posted, the two others I posted links to, or the historical timeline I provided. You could have debated the material had you chosen to do so but once again you're back in personal insult land. BTW when are you going to send Phrost $20 and become a contributing member? It would be the decent thing to do.

nihilist
31st December 03, 12:17 AM
QUOTE "What a spaz."
Amp, if you have a beef with me, PM me and get it off your chest.
Please don't litter the board with personal insults.

poet
31st December 03, 12:21 AM
SB -
"BTW when are you going to send Phrost $20 and become a contributing member? It would be the decent thing to do."

Decent & KFss ...???

Samuel Browning
31st December 03, 12:25 AM
Its the liberal in me, always looking out for the best in people, but KFS won't chip in because he probably already spent the sawbucks on the talking Ann Coulter doll.

poet
31st December 03, 12:27 AM
lol
ttt

Stick
31st December 03, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Samuel Browning
but KFS won't chip in because he probably already spent the sawbucks on the talking Ann Coulter doll.


Nice burn.

Kungfoolss
31st December 03, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi

Side note, Japan is racist all to hell. People relocate away from me and other gaijin when we sit down on trains, we are denied service at certain facilities (some karaoke bars and and public baths), shp owners eye us or follow us through the store, and no matter how well you speak Japanese to some people they either completely ignore you or spit out some lame "I don't speak English, so sorry".


I know a bit about the Japanese culture, while the Japanese may appear or in fact share a prejudice concerning foreigners, in many cases, it's foreigners themselves that have contributed to that negative atmosphere and they must accept an equal share of the blame. Foreigners are often rude, loud, and disrespectful of Japanese customs. So it comes as no surprise you are on the receiving end of that ire.

The very people that have treated you badly may have had an equally unpleasant experience that has colored their view of foreigners. In addition, first impressions are very important to the Japanese people. The manner in which you carry yourself will often be the determining factor how their society will treat you. If you're an arrogant, swaggering and loud gaijin, expect a lack of respect and coldness. However, if you're respectful, carry yourself with a degree of dignity and maturity the Japanese will usually respond in kind. Of course, the area which you frequent has a great deal to do with it as well.

The Japanese are a prideful people, with a touch of arrogance throw into the mix. You have to take into account our two histories together, we occupied their country which brought a lot of good as well as the bad. Ask the older generation about the US military servicemen and their behavior in the decades following the occupation, I can assure you most of it is not looked upon as favorable by the Japanese and you really can't blame them.

As for the racism, yes, that does exist. Of that there is no doubt, but usually it is behind closed doors and not so overt. Hell, the Japanese elite in Tokyo discriminate against other Japanese people based on their dialect alone, while Japan as a whole looks down on Okinawans. But as the society evolves and slowly becomes 'Americanized,' I believe a lot of racism you experienced will fade away with the older generations just as our culture has.

Ma, so yuu mon da ne Dai-Tenshi. ;)

Kungfoolss
31st December 03, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Samuel Browning
you didn't even address the contents of the succession statement I posted


I answered your previous statements, addressing your further spin is simply a waste of my time. One to a customer.



BTW when are you going to send Phrost $20 and become a contributing member? It would be the decent thing to do.


The quality of my posts brings a degree of respectability to Phrost's forum, I thought that would be good enough. Besides, I'm already supporting a forum of my own.

Stick
31st December 03, 12:57 AM
Yeah, KF, I understand where some of it comes from, we are on a whole "louder" than they tend to be. I and a few others have gotten used to this and tend to keep quiet but our first week here was ridiculous.

A friend and I were walking home from a bar having a quiet conversation (neither of us was drunk) and this old woman came out of her hosue screaming at us to not be so loud.... it was amazing. The Japanese definition of "quiet" is something I know I don't want to put up with for too many years of my life, loving my time here but I will be very happy when I'm back in the states.

I haven't talked to the older generation much, but its amazing how many people our age, in college, will brin up the occupation or the atom bombs (in a kind of passive agressive way) but have no idea about the kinds of things Japan did throughout Asia. It boggles the mind.

Also, can't seem to make heads or tails of what ya wrote at the end.... damnit. Is there supposed to be a comma before my name? Otherwise that seems more like Chinese grammar than Japanese....... argh.

Kungfoolss
31st December 03, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi

A friend and I were walking home from a bar having a quiet conversation (neither of us was drunk) and this old woman came out of her hosue screaming at us to not be so loud.... it was amazing. The Japanese definition of "quiet" is something I know I don't want to put up with for too many years of my life, loving my time here but I will be very happy when I'm back in the states.


I get that in Hawaii from time to time, especially in Waikiki toward the end of Kalakaua Ave where a lot of the senior citizens live. More than once a old woman came out to tell me to quiet down (in the middle of the day) or she would call the police. Rather than argue with them, I'll say "Fine, fine."



I haven't talked to the older generation much, but its amazing how many people our age, in college, will brin up the occupation or the atom bombs (in a kind of passive agressive way) but have no idea about the kinds of things Japan did throughout Asia. It boggles the mind.


Well, in that instance the younger people aren't really to blame. The older generation is in a state of denial, remember the pride thing? I know a lot of Japanese that don't believe things like the Rape of Nanking ever took place.



Also, can't seem to make heads or tails of what ya wrote at the end.... damnit. Is there supposed to be a comma before my name? Otherwise that seems more like Chinese grammar than Japanese....... argh.

It's not "proper" Japanese grammer, more casual and loose. In other words, "That's kinda the way it is."

Stick
31st December 03, 01:19 AM
aa, sou da na....

Was having trouble with "yuu mon".

Kungfoolss
31st December 03, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi
aa, sou da na....


Sou. :cool:



Was having trouble with "yuu mon".


I probably spelled it wrong, I'm not very good with romaji. :p

patfromlogan
31st December 03, 01:36 PM
A musician friend of mine was a drum co. rep in Tokyo. Fluent in Japanese and a large man, he had lots of stories of Japanese life. Like once on an elevator everyone started talking shit about him, saying, "Look at that belly, can you imagine how much beer he can drink?" and "That nose is so big and so ugly!" He said he felt bad after he exploded and said to them "You little people don't look so good yourselves." He regretted saying anything because to them it was a total loss of face and they all were mortified. He said as far as he knew they all went home and killed themselves.


I'm not as nice a person and have taken great joy in humiliating obnoxious Japanese fucks.
In Singapore at the Zoo/Park night exhibitions there were signs in every language asking people to be quiet so that the nocturnal animals wouldn't hide. A Japanese tour group came up making lots of noise, being very rude, so I asked them if it was true that Japanese was the only language on Earth that couldn't be whispered? You should have seen their amazing feat - they could snarl and apologize at the same time.

In China I carried a magazine around for a while with pictures of the Rape of Nanking so I could ask rude Japanese tourists about it. Most Japanese are ok, but they do have a cultural inferiority complex (some thing to do with the joke: What looks like a caterpillar, has twelve legs and a six-inch penis? Six Japanese guys carrying a canoe) that comes out in various horrid ways. As a Kyokushin bb I should have reminded the superior acting fucks from Japan that I sparred with in Honolulu that their Kyokushin Hawaiian champion was WHITE and could cream their asses with ease. But they were hurting me enough as it was.

patfromlogan
31st December 03, 01:42 PM
And to (and about) KFLSS:

Ronin asked when I posted that I was going to Hawaii for a few weeks early in Dec "Are you going to meet up with Kungfoolss?"

I replied:

"Nah, he just acted snotty when I asked to meet with him. First he said he'd cripple me, then said I'd have to do detective work to find him! Gee, I guess I'm outa luck. I'll be working out with Universal Kempo/Karate Schools, which he also made fun of. And he made fun of the Kyokushin dojo, so there is just no pleasing the guy. It will ruin my vacation!"

The fellow is odd, indeed. I offered to work out with him or just go have a beer (though I'd prefer a Mai Tai in the House With No Key gazing at Diamond Head, the surf, and the sunset). He is too crazy to want to actually meet or be friends with a fellow martial artist. I feel sorry for him, his obnoxious behavior must mask a lot of pain.

nihilist
31st December 03, 01:44 PM
QUOTE: "Fanatics are asshole morons, no matter what their religion."

Unless of course their fanatacism revolves around being kind and law abiding.

On an unrelated note, this press release:

CHICAGO (NOI.org) -The Nation of Islam, in response to several inquiries, has said today that it has no official business or professional relationship with Mr. Michael Jackson. The Nation of Islam joins thousands of other people in wishing him well.

Even black supremacists have the good sense to distance themselves from this time bomb.

Samuel Browning
31st December 03, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Kungfoolss
I answered your previous statements, addressing your further spin is simply a waste of my time. One to a customer.

Actually it would be answering the existing historical record and that is not my spin it is the statements made by the political elite of various southern states when leaving this country. So what is your claim? they never said it, their professed motivations were not important, or they lied for some unknown reason? BTW I'm not a customer. Its phrost's forum not yours.

The quality of my posts brings a degree of respectability to Phrost's forum, I thought that would be good enough. Besides, I'm already supporting a forum of my own.

My that is arrogant. Cheap, cheap, cheap, we all have other bills to pay. You would not spend the amount of money to support bullshido that you would spend on a lunch date or during one evening drinking beer and snacking down at a bar? And you have how many posts here? You number 10 G.I. me not like you long time *LAUGHS* Seriously why not fork up at least on a one time basis?

Samuel Browning
31st December 03, 02:05 PM
By KUNGFOOLS: "I answered your previous statements, addressing your further spin is simply a waste of my time. One to a customer."

Actually it was not spin, I linked to, and reproduced the text of historical documents that showed what the professed motivation for succession was among the political leadership of three Southern states. You never replied to this data which I can reproduce but did not alter or influence i.e. "spin". So what is your claim? The texts were inaccurate? These men lied and said "slavery" when they wanted to say "tarriff'? These leaders can't be taken at their word because they are dead, racist, Southern White Men? Please tell us. And since its not your forum I am not your customer, the honor belongs to Phrost so the "one per customer" rule does not apply.

Bolverk
31st December 03, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by mike reese
Thanks guys.
I always get into it with guys like him (there's one on every board)

The last guy was of the opinion that the civil war wasn't based on slavery.

I'm a sucker for trolls.

and maybe I had too much sake last night.

Merry frickin'christmas.

Only a fool would believe that the civil war was based entirely on slavery. If you had paid attention to your history classes, you would know that the issue of slavery did not come to a head until the war was well under way. The primary issues of the war were Tarrifs, Railroad, States Rights, and Economic Issues.

The first group of slaves sold in America were Scottish Women and Children, 1611. From 1611 to 1865 slaves came from every corner of the earth and every ethnicity. During the 1800's Black Slaves were the majority of slaves along the costal areas of the south, but in many of the inland areas White and Native American Slaves outnumbered Black Slaves. In 1798, the importation of Slaves into Georgia was outlawed. The Constitution gave Congress the power to outlaw the importation of Slaves in 1808, which they did. In North Georgia, slavery was not wide spread, but the majority of the Slaves were of Native American, Scottish and Irish descent.

Lincoln did not address the slavery issue until England was about to enter the war on the side of the south. Also, the slave trade from Africa was abolished during the war in the Confederate Constitution. The North saw the issue as preservation of the Union, which is what prompted Lincoln's famous words, "A house divided can not stand."

During the draft for the War Between the States, 88 Black were lynched, in New York City, a northern stronghold. Lynchings did not begin in the South until after the war and the Ku Klux Klan came into prominence, leaving the lasting impression of the South that persists to this day.

Just for a bit more information, my people were slaves in America long before Blacks. Yet, I never hear anyone standing up for them, or decrying how racism and slavery effected them. I often wonder why we were forgotten as Slaves. I laugh at the complaints of others when I realize that we went first into the fields of America as servants to a master, yet we continued to struggle and work towards the future we have today. It is nothing more then the tribulations of life, and to look at it as a cause of all of my ancestors misfortune would be stupid. The political hay made of the Slavery issue is nothing more then that, political hay. If my people can recover from this past, so can others.

Bolverk
31st December 03, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Rigante
Saying that the Black Panthers were one of the best things for this country is equivalent to saying the white supremacists in northerin Idaho are the best thing for the state. Racism is racism and it applies equally both ways.

The Black Panthers were not a racist group. Their primary issue was protection of the rights of Blacks, up to and including the Second Amendment. The Black Panthers were given a bad reputation, but it was not generally deserved.

Osiris
31st December 03, 04:13 PM
States rights = slavery

Bolverk
31st December 03, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by mike reese
How did I know klanfool would jump up and say that the civil war was not about slavery??

All one has to do is read each states declaration of secession, which refers to the slaveholding states( Themselves) and the non slaveholding states (everybody else)

Yeah, it was about states rights alright; the states rights to treat human beings as animals.

Declarations of secession:

South Carolina (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=4&q=http://extlab1.entnem.ufl.edu/olustee/related/sc.htm&e=747)

Mississippi (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://extlab1.entnem.ufl.edu/olustee/related/ms.htm&e=747)

Texas (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=7&q=http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp&e=747)

Georgia:"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Still you foolishly simplify the issue. Were you aware that during the drafting of the Constitution they North did not want of let slaves have any vote or voice, and the south wanted them to be allowed a full vote and voice. That is how we came up with the three-fifths of a vote for Slaves. There were even Slaves in the Northern States. The importation of Slaves was outlawed in both the Confederate Constitution and the Congress of the United States. Many of the Southern States already saw the Slavery as a dying institution, with some States outlawing the importation of slaves in the late 1700's.

You are arguing the oppisite extreme, which makes you as much a bigot as any racist.

Bolverk
31st December 03, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by John A Butz
Pat, you are correct. America was far behind the European nations when it came to abolishing slavery.

This is not true. Though the European Nations did abolishing Slavery, the same was happening here, see my other posts. The main reason I say it is not true, is that slavery was abolished in the United States before the country was even 100 Years old. The other Nations had slavery for centuries, were America began abolishing Slavery in the late 1700's. Congress outlawed the importation of Slaves in 1808.

Osiris
31st December 03, 04:27 PM
Are you serious? That was NOT abolition. The slave population was excessivley dense in the south making the importation of more African quite dangerous.

Bolverk
31st December 03, 04:39 PM
Osiris, I will again reiterate, my people were slaves in America nearly 100 years before yours, and we remained slaves until the end of the war. The importation of slaves was outlawed for many reasons, but primarily because Slavery was being abolished around the world. The war ended in 1865, the United States declared Independence in 1776, and the Revolutionary War ended in 1783. Only 82 years elapsed from the end of the Revolutionary War to the end of slavery, 89 years elapsed from the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Also, any Slave who fought for the Continental Army was given his freedom, a gift from Alexander Hamilton, a Dead White Man.

patfromlogan
31st December 03, 06:13 PM
Well he wasn't dead at the time. Anyhow, aren't you confusing slave with indentured servant? Slavery is passed from generation to generation. What Europeans were actually slaves?

Rigante
31st December 03, 06:55 PM
If I remember correctly one of the main themes of this thread was about the Nation of Islam and whether it is good or bad for the country. The thread then expanded to involve other groups and racism in general. It is obviously a very hot topic because disrcimination exists in our country and around the world. We all have faced discrimination of one form or another. So did our ancestors. With some population groups slavery occurred more recently, while others it was more in the past, but virtually all have faced it and suffered from it. The danger is to stay focused on the past pointing fingers at people who are now dead. The solution is to look forward. Do blacks face discrimination from whites in U.S.? I would say certainly yes, however whites also face discrimination from blacks here, I have been the recipient of it myself. Whenever you experience it rightfully pisses you off. However to blame all your failures or problems on racism is an escape from personal responsibility. Ultimately what is important in life is not the cards that you were dealt but how you played your hand.

Freddy
31st December 03, 08:01 PM
All forms of racism is bad. It really doesnt matter whether the person is white ot black or what ever. Its wrong regardless.

nihilist
31st December 03, 10:59 PM
"Only a fool would believe that the civil war was based entirely on slavery".

That is not what I said, if you got that impression then I am truly sorry.

"slavery did not come to a head until the war was well under way"

I was under the impression that statements like the one below were penned Before the war.

Georgia:"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Quote: "Just for a bit more information, my people were slaves in America long before Blacks. Yet, I never hear anyone standing up for them, or decrying how racism and slavery effected them. I often wonder why we were forgotten as Slaves. I laugh at the complaints of others when I realize that we went first into the fields of America as servants to a master, yet we continued to struggle and work towards the future we have today. It is nothing more then the tribulations of life, and to look at it as a cause of all of my ancestors misfortune would be stupid. The political hay made of the Slavery issue is nothing more then that, political hay. If my people can recover from this past, so can others."

What has happened and continues to happen to Native Americans is unforgivable.

If this thread were about that issue guess who's side I would be on?

Just a bit of information about me, None of my ancestors were slave owners, fascist Nazis, or early American settlers. My grandfather was the son of an immigrant who learned racism in the south. I know people that have lived there and (from what I have heard) I am glad that I don't have to raise my children there.
It seems ironic that many people will hold me accountable for the crimes of people to which I am not even related.

Kungfoolss
1st January 04, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by Osiris
States rights = slavery

Hmmm, one of the rights for the Confederates but not the primary one as some ignorant individuals would have us believe.

Stick
1st January 04, 01:25 AM
Mike, this is America, you are not responsible for the crimes of your father.

...

Even if you were related to them, no one should hold you accountable for your ancestors' crimes. I don't have any nazis or klaners or slave holders in my family line that I know of....... well we can trace back to Eric the Red.... I'm pretty sure he owned a person or two, or killed a lot of people.......

Hmmmm, hope none of their ancestors heard that little confession of mine...... sheesh.

Very tired of hearing about "the man"- whom I have yet to meet- and how those of us with white skin are somehow, evil, cheaters, underhanded, etc etc etc ad nauseum.

Kungfoolss
1st January 04, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Bolverk
Osiris, I will again reiterate, my people were slaves in America nearly 100 years before yours, and we remained slaves until the end of the war. The importation of slaves was outlawed for many reasons, but primarily because Slavery was being abolished around the world. The war ended in 1865, the United States declared Independence in 1776, and the Revolutionary War ended in 1783. Only 82 years elapsed from the end of the Revolutionary War to the end of slavery, 89 years elapsed from the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Also, any Slave who fought for the Continental Army was given his freedom, a gift from Alexander Hamilton, a Dead White Man.

Your narratives are impressive Bolverk, bravo.

Oh, I'd like to add something here folks, it was the Republican party that freed the black man from bondage and the democrats were the ones that fought to keep them enslaved. I hope that irony is not lost on anyone, especially seeing how all the negativity directed against the South is coming from the democrats here. :D

"I knew that however bad the Republican party was, the democratic party was much worse. The elements of which the Republican party was composed gave better ground for the ultimate hope of the sucess of the colored man's cause than those of the democratic party." Frederick Douglass - Life and Times of Frederick Douglass 1881

Samuel Browning
1st January 04, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by Bolverk
Only a fool would believe that the civil war was based entirely on slavery. If you had paid attention to your history classes, you would know that the issue of slavery did not come to a head until the war was well under way. The primary issues of the war were Tarrifs, Railroad, States Rights, and Economic Issues.

The first group of slaves sold in America were Scottish Women and Children, 1611. From 1611 to 1865 slaves came from every corner of the earth and every ethnicity. During the 1800's Black Slaves were the majority of slaves along the costal areas of the south, but in many of the inland areas White and Native American Slaves outnumbered Black Slaves. In 1798, the importation of Slaves into Georgia was outlawed. The Constitution gave Congress the power to outlaw the importation of Slaves in 1808, which they did. In North Georgia, slavery was not wide spread, but the majority of the Slaves were of Native American, Scottish and Irish descent.

Lincoln did not address the slavery issue until England was about to enter the war on the side of the south. Also, the slave trade from Africa was abolished during the war in the Confederate Constitution. The North saw the issue as preservation of the Union, which is what prompted Lincoln's famous words, "A house divided can not stand."

During the draft for the War Between the States, 88 Black were lynched, in New York City, a northern stronghold. Lynchings did not begin in the South until after the war and the Ku Klux Klan came into prominence, leaving the lasting impression of the South that persists to this day.

Just for a bit more information, my people were slaves in America long before Blacks. Yet, I never hear anyone standing up for them, or decrying how racism and slavery effected them. I often wonder why we were forgotten as Slaves. I laugh at the complaints of others when I realize that we went first into the fields of America as servants to a master, yet we continued to struggle and work towards the future we have today. It is nothing more then the tribulations of life, and to look at it as a cause of all of my ancestors misfortune would be stupid. The political hay made of the Slavery issue is nothing more then that, political hay. If my people can recover from this past, so can others.

Bolverk, in this case you are creating a straw man argument. I for one would not argue that slavery was the ONLY cause of this war, but it was by far the most important reason for the civil war and its trigger. It is almost impossible to find a major historical event for which there is only one cause however like the civil war there are some events that are caused by one over-riding factor. The strongest argument on your side, that of tarriffs, last threatened the Union in the early 1830s and was resolved by the compromise tariff of 1833. It should also be noted at this time that only South Carolina threatened to succeed at this time. Only when slavery was the issue almost 30 years later did other southern states follow South Carolina's lead.

I previously posted a time line of events leading to the civil war and after 1833 they all revolved around the issue of slavery or the expansion of slavery. It is important to realize that at the start of the civil war the republican position was not abolitionist in regards to existing slave states, the Southern states bolted simply because Lincoln had stood firm by his campaign promise that slavery would not be extended into new states or territories. This was not particularly progressive as compared to the later emancipation proclamation issued well after the war had started, but Lincoln's initial position was taken because he and the republican party opposed the expansion of slavery and the South rightly viewed this as opposition to slavery itself.

Bolverk, I did pay attention in history class, high school, college, and graduate school, and the thesis you convey is the traditional interpretation of the civil war that was adopted after reconstruction and used in textbooks until the civil rights movement indirectly changed their content. Then who should we believe since history is obviously influenced by politics? In my case I simply looked at the declarations of some of the states that succeeded and saw that the revisionist interpretation is more accurate then the traditional approach on this particular historical question.

I am skeptical of your comments concerning the longevity of white indentured servatude in the United States (into the 1800s) but if you refer me to your preferred source I will read it and keep an open mind. It was my impression that starting in the late 1600s the planters in the south had attempted to make sure indentured servents were white and slaves were black or american indian to prevent white and black indentured servents from making common cause.

There were two other questionable historical points in your post. 1) England was not "about" to enter the civil war on the side of the south. It was considered however Secretary of State's Steward's adroit diplomacy persuaded the English not to intervene well before they were "about" to make this decision. If you give me until Friday I will be able to reference the source behind this contention.

2) I know nothing of your ancestors other then what you have told me but assuming they arrived involuntarily in 1611, since the first african american slaves arrived in Virginia in the 1620s your ancestors however poorly mistreated were not enslaved "long" before blacks, only by lest then 20 years. A minor point perhaps but one worth considering.

Rigante
1st January 04, 01:32 PM
This whole slavery issue is a hollow smokestream. Unless there are individuals on this forum who are 139 years old or have recently emigrated from Nigeria etc, no one on this forum has been a slave. Except for a few areas (fortunately very few) which still have an active slave trade it literally is a dead issue. It involved both victims and perpetrators who are now dead. It only confuses and distorts the problem of discrimination. That is the issue.

Regarding the native american issue. Here in the Dakotas the Sioux essentially committed genocide against the Mandan once they got horse. The same old story of better technology being used to dominate another group. I am sure my own native american ancestors also participated in and were victims of genocide and slavery when dealing with opposing tribes before the colonials arrived. The British and French only capitalized on the pre-existing hatred between the tribes.

Arguing that the Black Panthers were only essuring the rights of the blacks is essentially the same arguement the militia and white supremacist groups use here in Idaho except of course naming the white race as being the victims. Extremist groups on both side capitalize on the fear and anger of people to grab and maintain political power. When was the last time Jessie Jackson went on a campaign to stop the slavery of Africans in Nigeria and Gabon. He hasnt because it doesnt give him money or power. You would tnink that if he truly was a acting as a minister and deserved the title "Reverand" he would at least make this a prominent issue. His silence is telling.

Southpaw
1st January 04, 02:53 PM
Rigante-

It is ridiculous to think that the effects of slavery ended as soon as slavery was abolished.

Ever heard of Jim Crow?

Stick
1st January 04, 02:59 PM
and those laws have been abolished for.....

Rigante
1st January 04, 03:15 PM
And just when do the effects of slavery end? Technically it never ends especially if you want something to whine about. Continuing to whine about slavery that was in the past is childish. Of course some people would rather remain children.

MrMcFu
1st January 04, 04:18 PM
For some perspective:

If someone put your grandmother in a hole, starved, worked her unceasingly and raped her for two weeks, you would screwed up today from the effects of it. Multiply that times her entire life.

Samuel Browning
1st January 04, 04:41 PM
I'm not going to defend the black panthers, and I am not in favor of present day direct reparations for slavery which I believe should have been awarded to people who were enslaved at the end of the civil war. Otherwise when would the claims stop? All legal remedies have a finite time periods. Though Slavery was abolished by the civil war, Africian Americans did not have equal protection under the law until at least the 1960s with such innovations as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Supreme Court striking down laws such prohibited such things as inter-racial marrage (Loving v. Virginia was decided in the late 1960s) The institutional legasy of slavery therefore can be identified as continuing until at least that time. The typical liberal response has been to attempt to make informal reperations by funding social programs intended to alleviate poverty, especially among african americans. These programs however have generally underachieved or not achieved anything though some like medicare, and social security have been successful in reducing absolute poverty among the elderly poor of whom many are african american. Quite frankly I don't know what to do next.

Kungfoolss
1st January 04, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Bolverk
Lincoln did not address the slavery issue until England was about to enter the war on the side of the south. Also, the slave trade from Africa was abolished during the war in the Confederate Constitution. The North saw the issue as preservation of the Union, which is what prompted Lincoln's famous words, "A house divided can not stand."




Originally posted by Samuel Browning
There were two other questionable historical points in your post. 1) England was not "about" to enter the civil war on the side of the south. It was considered however Secretary of State's Steward's adroit diplomacy persuaded the English not to intervene well before they were "about" to make this decision. If you give me until Friday I will be able to reference the source behind this contention.


Folks, I going to prove to you why it's a waste of time to take whatever Sam has to say seriously. His worthless cliche, "creating a straw man argument," is just that, worthless. It's the last desperate ploy of a weak debater and even weaker mind.

Sam, read them and weep. Again, Bolverk, I salute you. ->

Emancipation Proclamation (1863)

Lincoln’s bold step to change the goals of the war was a military measure and came just a few days after the Union’s victory in the Battle of Antietam. With this Proclamation he hoped to inspire all blacks, and slaves in the Confederacy in particular, to support the Union cause and to keep England and France from giving political recognition and military aid to the Confederacy.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/

***************************

"To a significant degree, too, Lincoln's emancipation of the slaves was a move within his political-diplomatic strategy. It was most likely designed to appease some of those in Europe who had sympathized with the case of the Southern states but were beginning to despise their institution of slavery. So as not to have England side with the South, Lincoln declared slavery intolerable and refused to agree to facilitate its spread and continuation." Tibor R. Machan

Tibor R. Machan teaches business ethics at Chapman University and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=671&FS=Rethinking+the+Civil+War

Kungfoolss
1st January 04, 05:18 PM
If you give me until Friday I will be able to reference the source behind this contention.


Oh Sam, by the way, you'll notice it did not take me two days to pull up these resources. Just a matter of minutes. Chump.

Osiris
1st January 04, 05:41 PM
"and those laws have been abolished for....."

Less time than its taken my family to die. They experienced it first hand.

Samuel Browning
1st January 04, 07:00 PM
You should have reprinted the entire article Kung Fools unless you were afraid to show Tibor R. Machan's questionable reasoning. His posting demonstrates that professors do not always put together logical arguments. My critical comments will be in [brackets].

"When I was a student at the Munich American High School and Cleveland's John Adams High School, I studied American history and was taught what had been then and still seems to be the standard account of the American Civil War. My own children have received roughly the same instruction during their primary and secondary educations in Virginia, Nebraska, and California.

It goes like this. Because of slavery, America was initially divided in two parts: the North, where people commendably opposed slavery and wanted a union that would have nothing to do with it; and the South, where slavery was enthusiastically embraced and defended as proper, on the despicable grounds that blacks were not fully human.

Eventually, we are told, Abraham Lincoln rose to the presidency and took the needed steps to end this intolerable situation by making sure that the South did not secede from the Union and remain a slave-holding society. He used the words of the U.S. Declaration of Independence to justify this. The most important lesson from the bloody war was that the side that basically had unAmerican ideas lost, and the side that wanted to fully live up to the ideals of the Declaration—with its unequivocal endorsement of the principle of individual, unalienable human rights for all—won. Thus, America ended a most contradictory and shameful period of its young history.

[I don't know which textbook the professor used in his classes but based on the picture the good professor posts (which makes it appear he is at least in his fifties) his textbook would have been more sympathetic to the South then he lets on, unless he had a string of unusual leftist teachers who were not using the standard textbooks of the era. I think I will write him and ask him which textbook was used in his classes. In mine we used the "American Pageant" 7th ed (1983) by Bailey and Kennedy which partly blames lincoln's inflexability re slavery for the sucession, with lines like "a rail spliitter splits the union" (p. 379) It did however say "The proposed Crittenden amendments to the constiitution were designed to appease the South. Slavery in the territories was to be given federal protection in all territories existing or hereafter to be acquired (such as Cuba). . . . Lincoln flatly rejected the Crittenden scheme which offered some slight prospect of success, and all hope of compromise fled. For this refusal he must bear a heavy responsibility. Yet he had been elected on a platform that opposed the extension of slavery, and felt that as a matter of principle he could not afford to yield, even though gains for slavery in the territories might be temporary. Large gains might come later in Cuba an Mexico. (pp. 383-384) If Slavery was not the primary cause of succession how would lincoln's "inflexabiility" on the crittenden compromise helped trigger succession?]

While sketchy, this used to seem a plausible story to me. Most of those I knew were happy with the ending, hoping that, in time, the residual effects of slavery and segregation would vanish and the country would emerge to pursue a course that was unambiguously supportive of individual rights for all. Yet, there were some difficulties with the story. As I kept reading into it— in books, scholarly journals, and magazines—and discussing it all with historians and legal scholars, I slowly had to revise my understanding of what happened.

As an example of a dissenting voice, consider Lord Acton, author of that famous quote about government: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In his private correspondence with Confederate General Robert E. Lee, Acton said:

I saw in States' Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy . . . I deemed that you [i.e., Lee] were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.

This is a shocking outburst from someone whose judgment on political matters is difficult to impeach.

[actually its easy to impreach, Robert E. Lee was not telling Acton in his own words why Virginia and the other states had left the union, instead this Englishman was telling Lee why the south had acted as it did and we do not even have the benefit of Lee's reply.]

Samuel Browning
1st January 04, 07:01 PM
More recently, there is Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s well-documented argument—made persuasively in his article, "The Great Centralizer: Abraham Lincoln and the War between the States," in the journal, The Independent Review—that, contrary to popular belief, the war was not fought primarily over slavery. It certainly did not begin because of slavery, but, instead, because of the different economic policies of the Northern and Southern states, some of them related to the institution of slavery but others independent of it. Furthermore, it appears that most Northerners had no objection to slavery and acted accordingly, as they dealt with Southern slave-owners in trade and other matters, without protest.
[I will reply to this article in another post: UPDATE I tried to link to this article and couldn't]

As I explored the matter further, it came to light that Abraham Lincoln didn't so much object to slavery as to some of the institution's economic implications for the Northern states. In fact, Lincoln even agreed with the way many Southern slave-owners thought about blacks and whites. True, in the end, he did emancipate the slaves, but he also preferred that they leave this country and form their own—specifically, in Africa. (Indeed, Liberia was formed by some of those blacks who did return in this spirit!)

[Lincoln became more 'liberal' on slavery as the war went on. He said both racist and progressive things during his entire life. At the time of the lincoln/douglas debates he stated "I would like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal on principle, and making exceptions to it - where would it stop? If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why does not another say iit does not mean some other man?" (Loewen, p. 180 citing Angle, Created Equal: the complete Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, p. 41.) He did consider a resettlement scheme but never apparently took any action to make it a reality. He did not return slaves to Liberia, James Monroe did so in 1822 which is why Liberia's capitol is called Monrovia. Basically Lincoln did not particularly care for black people but still opposed slavery.]

To a significant degree, too, Lincoln's emancipation of the slaves was a move within his political-diplomatic strategy. It was most likely designed to appease some of those in Europe who had sympathized with the case of the Southern states but were beginning to despise their institution of slavery. So as not to have England side with the South, Lincoln declared slavery intolerable and refused to agree to facilitate its spread and continuation. [Can't disagree here, however Lincoln still legitimately disliked slavery and had this view well before the emancipation, his secretary of state steward had also been courtiing the European powers well before emancipation]

In particular, he rejected the fugitive slave laws by his refusal to have the federal government enforce them. That meant that slaves who escaped and moved to the Northern states would not be caught and returned by federal law enforcement authorities, even though in other cases of crimes committed in one state the federal authorities would help with law enforcement.
[This is supposed to show Lincoln didn't dislike slavery?]

Even more importantly, what came as a shocker to me was Abraham Lincoln's illiberal ways of going about the prosecution of the war. In his efforts to fight and win a war against the Southern states, he used many methods that contradicted his alleged belief in the principles of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. He refused to abide by the principles of due process, especially habeas corpus, in dealing with his critics in both government and the media. This showed that he didn't regard those principles as inviolate as he pretended to in his political rhetoric. (This is brought out very powerfully in Charles Adams's book, When in the Course of Human Events [Rowman & Littlefield, 2000].) [true he revoked habeas corpus in several states, but in his defense he was fighting a civil war and had previously dodged one plot to kill him before he was sworn in to his first term.]

Another issue that concerns me is how many in the North seemed to be committed to state intervention in the economy, particularly protectionism and other types of restraint of trade. This in a country that supposedly was destined to secure liberty throughout the world by its excellent example! Yet those who promote protectionism and numerous other types of economic intervention by government evidently have little understanding of and commitment to individual liberty, even if at their hands the institution of slavery met its demise. (This is argued very forcefully in Professor Jeffrey Hummel's book, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men [Open Court, 1996].) [hey we were trying to support our own early industrial revolution which eventually made America the number one economic power in the world, would he prefer no economic interventiion like highway systems? Of course we could have run our economy for the benefit of a planter/slave owning class but why not run it for everyone else?]

Of course, history is never as clear-cut as it is taught in public schools, but, in this instance, something strange is afoot: While most people know that there is a controversy brewing among historians and other scholars as far as the precise reasons behind the American Civil War, the public education system has taken little or no notice of this at all. [No political conspiracy here, the modern scholarship supports what I have previously called the revisionist position.]

Indeed, Lincoln is treated as an unqualified hero—yet, for instance, notice how it has become standard practice lately to call into question Thomas Jefferson's sincerity concerning individual rights because of his involvement with slavery! Even as people are decrying the attempts of nationalist teachers in Japan and Germany to distort the histories of their countries so as to paint things in a favorable light for them, there is hardly any outcry in the U.S. about the biased way in which young people are taught about the American Civil War. [Unlike Jefferson, Lincoln wasn't sleeping with women who had no choice in the matter and Lincoln's words occassionally matched his actions.]

There may be on upside to all of this, however—namely, on the lack of trust citizens will gradually come to have in their public or government educators. It may teach some of them that a monopolized educational system, run by politically appointed "educators," tends to become a system of indoctrination centers, not unlike how such a system is used by all statist regimes once they get in charge of it. This, in turn, will perhaps encourage enough folks to want to privatize primary and secondary public education, whereby the curriculum would open itself to diversification and include an approach to teaching about the Civil War that must contend with skepticism and nuance. [The author dislikes publically funded education, in some parts of the south however the private schools were created in response to integration to handle "white flight" while they may provide a good education in may subjects, these conservative academys are not likely to be less historically biased then their public school counterparts.]

Samuel Browning
1st January 04, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Kungfoolss
Oh Sam, by the way, you'll notice it did not take me two days to pull up these resources. Just a matter of minutes. Chump.

Thats because you confuse quantity for quality in your historical sources. Not every good source is on the internet and I have a very good one to reference tomarrow. What's the matter Kung? getting a little impatient? I always knew you eagerly awaited each of my posts :)

poet
1st January 04, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Kungfoolss
Folks, I going to prove to you why it's a waste of time to take whatever Sam has to say seriously. His worthless cliche, "creating a straw man argument," is just that, worthless. It's the last desperate ploy of a weak debater and even weaker mind.


Worthless is the argumentum ad hominem, attacking the person, you always do.
Things not going so well with your argument??

Kungfoolss
1st January 04, 07:15 PM
(Waves hand dismissively) Sam, I'm glad the majority of the people here are able to see through your rather weak debating points and futile spin. You listed no resources to back up your points contesting Bolverks statements regarding England and the civil war. What does the your quote from General Lee have to do with the topic at hand? Absolutely ZERO.

You're pathetic.

Samuel Browning
1st January 04, 07:34 PM
Err Kungfools, its a quote not from General Lee but from Lord Acton and your 'expert' clearly identifies the quote as being from Acton and tries to use it to butress his position. If the words had come from General Lee it would tenatively support your position but relying on the evaluation of a famous British politician regarding the causes of the civil war when there is no proof Acton was an authority on this conflicit is weak. But if you wish to embarrass yourself through a simple misattribution thats your choice, but it just makes you look like my intellectual love slave. I have already cited three state declarations and two books on the thread. I hope Bolvark will understand if it takes me 18 more hours to reproduce parts of an essay specifically on Secretary of State Steward's diplomacy visa-ve England. But when you find a better argument I'm sure you will share.

MrMcFu
1st January 04, 07:39 PM
Less time than its taken my family to die. They experienced it first hand.

Osiris, you have to understand, many of these people more suited to the classroom then life. Common sense is replaced by whacked out theories.

Southpaw
1st January 04, 10:09 PM
Anyone who doesn't think that slavery has had lasting repercussions doesn't understand the economic impact of denying a whole race of people opportunities in education, employment, politics, and society in general for 400 years.

Stick
1st January 04, 10:19 PM
....

God damnit >_<

Sorry Os, but what the fuck are we supposed to do? They've been abolished, society has APPARENTLY been moving towards ending racism. I and the vast majority of people I've met in life seem to me to be pretty damn good about this, and yet I can't help this feeling I get in popular culture and in life that us "white trash", "crackers", and whatever else (I've yet to see a black guy get busted for using the term "cracker" or "white trash" while any white guy that hurls a racial slur is typically publicly condemned by the majority, hell I've done the condemning) are OBVIoUSLY the cause of any problem faced by a minority commmunity or individual.

I really hope by the time I die we'll have gotten past this because I'm tired of being made to feel as if by being born into the middle class and of European decent I'm somehow evil.

I'm just fucking tired.

But then an African American can say that he's tired of being followed around in stores, eyed by old people, and the immediate suspect should something go wrong...... I suppose I'm just a whiny little bitch and should accept that untill that's fixed I don't have the right to be proud of my heritage.

I really don't know what you're going to make of this post; just know, if I made offense, I'm sorry.

Southpaw
1st January 04, 10:25 PM
You can be proud of your heritage and not proud of slavery. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

"A lover of his country rebukes, and does not excuse its sins"--Fredrick Douglas

Osiris
1st January 04, 10:25 PM
I didnt say that you could do anything. Denying that there was/is a problem though isnt helping.

Southpaw
1st January 04, 10:52 PM
Here's what I think we can do.

Demand that schools teach history to our children in a way that realistically describes our past, while focusing on contributions from all aspects of American heritage, not just those from white europeans.

How many American children know that our founding fathers used the Iroquois nation as a model for our government?

How many American children know the story of John Brown? Or the role J.Q. Adams played in defending slaves who killed the crew of their slave ship?

How many American children know who the "Buffalo Soldiers" were?



If we don't teach our children about our sins, we are bound to repeat them. And if we don't teach our children about the realities of our history, it minimizes the contribution of our American heros whom we should be teaching about.

How else do we fix a society that thinks heros are Kobe and Shaq?

Stick
1st January 04, 10:53 PM
I really don't know what to say.

I know there was a problem, I'd like to think that we've come a long way since the 1860's and even since the 1960's. I'd like to think it's not as bad as it was, but when my peers spit out lines like "oh, like anything's changed" or "this country is so fucking racist" and I listen to the news and especially the ever so wonderful prtoestors (great footage leading up to the Iraq war, apparently it was all because we're racists) I can't shake the feeling that some people think hundereds of thousands of folks died in the civil war for nothing and that the countless civil rights protestors and demonstrators and organizers died for nothing.

Listen, in 50 years, when we're a minority- assuming we've had a few presidents of other ethnicities by then etc etc- can we just lose the moral inferiority and mistrust that everyone else seems to have for us?

Nihilanthic
1st January 04, 10:57 PM
The problem is that people still differentiate between races. It won't ever go away until that does.

Nobody is born into some race (which is not a choice you made, btw) and grows up exactly like members of that race, and different from other races. People tend to grow up and turn into the kind of person they want to be based on their indivudual interests and desires. The lot of us are from some rather widely ranged backgrounds, aren't we? Yet we still all share at least ONE common interest, do we not? My ancestors were serfs in England and coal miners in appalachia. I'm a college kid who's a geek who happened to get into martial arts, and thus here.

People do and should group by interest. Racial differences are mostly only good for telling people apart visually, and by which culture their ancestors hail from. But even that can be changed by your interest in them. How many of us have been interested in Asian culture because of Martial Art exposure? How many ricers stick a billion Kanji on their car?

Frankly I'd love it if I could set off a memory bomb and make everyone just STFU and get along. I'd tell everyone to just get along and organize some kind of government. Too bad within a few decades crap would probably start AGAIN anyway.

Southpaw
1st January 04, 11:04 PM
Here's part of the problem:

This thread is perfect proof.

Nobody is even willing to talk about the possibility of lasting economic effects from slavery and Jim Crow.

It's just the "get over it...or let's all forget" ideas.

This is why there is a problem.

Nihilanthic
1st January 04, 11:11 PM
If everyone just did get over it and treated everyone the same it would. But they won't. Either greed or a true feeling that something that screwed an ancestor gives the person currently alive a right to some extra will keep people doing that, as well as random idiots who believe their race is superior to another. Race is not a choice you made, it was just pure chance.

I do see how the Jim Crow BS and slavery has made people poorer and less educated, meaning their decendants will be more than likely poor and poorly educated, etc, into the future. Aside from making the racist idiots not spew their hate everyone needs to be guaranteed the same education. As it is now what you get out of education is about luck and money, mostly. Quality in education varies wildly depending on where you live, and if you are rich you can afford to get a good one, or not need one anyway.

It seems Education would solve a lot of these problems.

Kungfoolss
2nd January 04, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Samuel Browning
Err Kungfools, its a quote not from General Lee but from Lord Acton and your 'expert' clearly identifies the quote as being from Acton and tries to use it to butress his position. If the words had come from General Lee it would tenatively support your position but relying on the evaluation of a famous British politician regarding the causes of the civil war when there is no proof Acton was an authority on this conflicit is weak.


What makes you assume that the quote sighted is from one party alone or anything representative of the discussion in its entirety? It is merely one half of a quotation from the correspondence between General Lee and Lord Acton. As for Lord Acton-

"Described as "the magistrate of history," Lord Acton was one of the great personalities of the nineteenth century and is universally considered to be one of the most learned Englishmen of his time. He made the history of liberty his life's work; indeed, he considered political liberty the essential condition and guardian of religious liberty."

Lord Acton transmitted to the English-speaking world the rigor of studying history as much as possible from original sources, pioneered by 19th century German scholars. His estate at Cannes (France) had more than 3,000 books and manuscripts; his estate at Tegernsee (Bavaria), some 4,000; and Aldenham (Shropshire, England), almost 60,000. He marked thousands of passages he considered important.

He was awarded an honorary Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Munich (1873), honorary Doctor of Laws from Cambridge University (1889) and honorary Doctor of Civil Law from Oxford University (1890) -- yet he never earned an academic degree in his life, not even a high school diploma.

Again, I'll ask you as I did before, how does your credentials measure up Sam?



actually its easy to impreach, Robert E. Lee was not telling Acton in his own words why Virginia and the other states had left the union, instead this Englishman was telling Lee why the south had acted as it did and we do not even have the benefit of Lee's reply


This is why you're a joke, you shoot your mouth off before you even begin to do the research.

In fact we do have the benefit of Lee's reply, only educated idiot such as yourself that's never bothered to do the legwork could ever hope to discover it on your own ->

Robert E. Lee's correspondence to Lord Acton-

"Although your letter of the 4th ulto. has been before me some days unanswered, I hope you will not attribute it to a want of interest in the subject, but to my inability to keep pace with my correspondence. As a citizen of the South I feel deeply indebted to you for the sympathy you have evinced in its cause, and am conscious that I owe your kind consideration of myself to my connection with it. The influence of current opinion in Europe upon the current politics of America must always be salutary; and the importance of the questions now at issue the United States, involving not only constitutional freedom and constitutional government in this country, but the progress of universal liberty and civilization, invests your proposition with peculiar value, and will add to the obligation which every true American must owe you for your efforts to guide that opinion aright. Amid the conflicting statements and sentiments in both countries, it will be no easy task to discover the truth, or to relieve it from the mass of prejudice and passion, with which it has been covered by party spirit.

I am conscious the compliment conveyed in your request for my opinion as to the light in which American politics should be viewed, and had I the ability, I have not the time to enter upon a discussion, which was commenced by the founders of the constitution and has been continued to the present day. I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism." Robert E. Lee, Lexington, Vir., 15 Dec. 1866

Bolverk
2nd January 04, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by patfromlogan
Well he wasn't dead at the time. Anyhow, aren't you confusing slave with indentured servant? Slavery is passed from generation to generation. What Europeans were actually slaves?

Scotts and Irish who were captured during any hostilities by the British Crown were often sold into slavery, not indentured servitude. Indentured servitude was to pay off debts, or as a punishment for crime.

In 1611 Scotish women and children were the first slaves sold in the United States. You have obviously bought into the modern view on slavery.

Freddy
2nd January 04, 03:28 PM
Got any good references? That would be some interesting reading.

Bolverk
2nd January 04, 03:44 PM
Samuel Browning, I like your post. And some of the issues you speak about may be true, or a point of view depending on where you get your historical information.

Slavery was not a good thing. My point is simple, slavery only lasted until the end of the civil war, with many laws outlawing the importation of slaves as early as the late 1700's in the Southern States, 1808 in the country as a whole, and ending slavery completly in 1865. That is 89 years since the country was created, a much shorter time line then any other nation.

Also, slavery did not just encompass blacks. Slaves came from every corner of the world and every ethnicity, and just to be clear, even indentured servitude is a form of slavery. However, not all slaves of Euorpean descent were indentured servants. That is a misconception.

Also, I was taught that Lincoln outlawed slavery after the war was under way for a couple of years and it appeared that the British were going to help on the side of the South. Since slavery was already outlawed in Britian, this made it difficult for them to enter the war. I am not sure about what individuals were involved beyond that point.

As far as the Republican Party being against slavery, there were many divisions and beliefs. One of the planks in their partys platform was to end slavery. However, that does not mean that everyone agreed on the subject. Further proof comes from a Biography I read on Wyatt Earp. His Father and Brothers fought for the North during the War Between the States. However, when Lincoln abolished slavery, Wyatt Earps Father resigned from the Military because he believed that the Federal Government should not abolish slavery without compensating the Slave Owners for the property that was taken. However, because his sons Virigil and James were against slavery, he urged them to stay in the military untill the end because it shown character and integrity to fight for what they believed in, rather then leave the military for their fathers beliefs.

My point, though slavery was an major issue during the events leading up to the war, it was not the most central issue or it would have been abolished sooner. Slavery was on its way out already, and many of the Southern States knew it. The North was running roughshod over the south in the years leading up to the war. The issues were far deeper then wether or not the South would be able to maintain slavery, and the importation of slaves had already been outlawed nearly sixty years before the start of the war.

Osiris
2nd January 04, 05:00 PM
A few cases of Eurpopean slavery is NOT comperable to the institution of slavery as seen cncerning blacks. I dont even know why you brought it up.

Bolverk
2nd January 04, 06:31 PM
Osiris, I know it is hard for you to believe that there were more then a few cases of European Slavery, but it is a simple fact that there were more then a few. The institution of Slavery is far older then you realize, encompassed more ethnicities then you wish to admit, and is still being practiced today by the very race of people who push it in our faces as effecting only them. Buy into the lie of only Blacks were slaves if it makes you feel any better, but the truth is far from what we are being told today.

Freddy
2nd January 04, 07:12 PM
Sources/references?

Bolverk
2nd January 04, 08:33 PM
Here is one source from the web. It goes into some good detail as well as providing documentation.

http://www.electricscotland.com/history/other/white_slavery.htm

Nihilanthic
2nd January 04, 08:52 PM
Can't we just fucking agree its bad and should be stopped? Not bitch about whose race was fucked over more in the past?

What is THAT going to accomplish?

Osiris
2nd January 04, 10:07 PM
Bolverk, Im not stupid. I know slavery wasnt anything new. Slaves had been around LONG before America. Yeh, other people have been done wrong. We know this. However, a comparison is RIDICULOUS. To this day they still kill people for being black.

Southpaw
2nd January 04, 10:54 PM
White slavery was a fact in early America, and around the world. But it is not relevant to the discussion of African slavery in the Americas.

The fact is, when's the last time a man was denied a job because he was a desendent of a Brit? When were English slaves lynched? When were there laws making them not look people in the face when they walked?

European slaves assimilated and blended into the dominant white culture. It was rough, for the Irish, Italians, Polish...but they did it, because they looked enough like the dominant society.

It's a completely different set of circumstances.

Osiris
2nd January 04, 11:02 PM
Thats why the enlavement of blacks stood out. It was a new form not because of the fact of slavery, but the dehumanization aspect that continues to this day.

Southpaw
2nd January 04, 11:06 PM
Exactly.

But you wouldn't know that from public school would you?

Samuel Browning
3rd January 04, 01:50 AM
I will be replying to Kung Fool's accusations in separate posts over this weekend since I am moving from history book to history book right now. So for those other then Kungfools, my apologies, I'm building my case step by step. One of the issues brought up by Bolvark was whether the English were about to throw their support behind the south and the emancipation proclaimation made them decide not to do so. The theory being that Lincoln issued this proclaimation freeing slaves in REBEL territories to keep the European countries from supporting the South because now they would be intervening on the side of slavery. The implication being that Lincoln issued this declaration for political reasons as verses deeply held beliefs concerning slavery. My contention is that Lincoln issued the E-proclaimation for both political and moral reasons. But first let me get to the historical source that KFs has been demanding I produce.

"Why the North Won the Civil War: The Collapse of the Confederacy", edited by David Donald and published by Collier Books, New York, in 1962. On pages 55-78, Norman A. Graebner, a professor at the University of Illinois (at the time of writing) Has a nice chapter on "Northern Diplomacy and European Neutrality". I'll attempt to summarize Graebner's points. In 1860 there were three major European powers. England, France, and Russia. (Pre-Bismark Germany had not been united and the Austria Hungarian Empire didn't gear its foreign policy past continental Europe, the last observation is mine) Russia was firmly pro-union viewing a united America as a ccheck on British ambitions. France was initially sympathetic to the South but didn't want to have a policy supporting the Confederacy that neither England or Russia supported. (they really did not have much force projection capability) England had both the means to intervene, its ruling class had sympathy for the south, and it would have benefited in the short term from seeing the US splitter. (this is before the germans started acting up again) What kept the English from taking sides?

The first reason was that Secretary of State Steward threw a fit whenever an English diplomat
suggested that they mediate the conflict or recognize the Confederacy. He would bluster that recognition was interference and would lead to war. The English therefore had to contend with the following questions, If we recognize the confederacy, are we going to break the northern blockade of southern ports, and then are we willing to get involved in a war? and what are the French and the Russians thinking? The answer was the Russians opposed every pro-confederacy proposal, this made the French waffle even more then they normally do, because joint action was not possible, then the English cabinet would say let them exhaust themselves on the battlefield and then we'll go with the winner.

The british cabinet seriously considered recognizing the south diplomatically In 1862 when the battlefield situation was most favorable to the confederacy, though the tactical retreat by general lee after the battle of antietam reduced British support for intervention. The emancipation proclaimation and battlefield victories by the North at Gettysburg the next summer convinced the British of the futility of intervention. The British were also concerned that if they backed the South and were on the losing side, the North would go after canada producing a lengthy and bloody war.

Graebner's argument can be summarized as follows "Europe's diplomatic tradition cautioned against any recognition of the confederacy until the South had demonstrated the power required to establish and maintain its independence. Without the assurance of ultimate Southern success, European involvement would assume the risk of either an eventual ignominious retreat from a declared diplomatic objective or an unlimited military commitment to guarantee the achievement of Southern independence. Confronted with Europe's traditional realism, the Southern diplomatic cause in London and Paris could be no more successful than the Southern military cause in Virginia and Pennsylvania." (p. 66.)

Secretary of State Steward did not spend any of his diplomatic energy telling British politicians or public the slavery was wrong so they should not recognize the confederacy. Instead he issued threats concerning the consequences of recognizing the confederacy. Lincoln was probably more attuned to the necessity of having the moral high ground in this conflict but I have found no indications in Graebner's article that he was aware of the nature of British cabinet level discussions and was reacting to them when he issued his preliminary emancipation proclamation on September 22, 1962. Historian James McPherson in "Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction" 2nd ed (McGraw-Hill Inc, New York, 1992) indicates that Lincoln was more focused on the impact of his edict domestically. (see page 292)

So the first source indicates that the English were seriously considering acting but not about to recognize the south and that they kept putting off this decision. McPherson indicates that Lincoln was focusing more on the domestic then foreign impact of the e-proclaimation.

Samuel Browning
3rd January 04, 02:54 AM
KUNGFOOLS:

"Again, I'll ask you as I did before, how does your credentials measure up [to Lord Acton] Sam?"

Having had the opportunity to watch you debate people on this website since April I am amused that someone who is unwilling to talk about his own background or even indicate which SCARS classes he has taken is now demanding other people's educational credentials. Normally I would supply such information however I have never seen you reciprocate when any such an information exchange is proposed. Since you typically operate in bad faith on this issue I see no reason to play that game. What matters is whether I provide links and citations to the sources I dig up, and I noticed you have not provided the customary link to either Acton's biography or Lee's letter. Since I will be posting some James McPherson next I will happy to revisit the issue of Lord Acton on Sunday night because his appearance on this thread is part of a larger, more important issue of whether the civil war was caused by slavery or non slavery related states rights issues. I will pose this question however that will presumably allow you to exhibit your debating abilities.

On March 21, 1861, Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens made the following speech in Savannah which I have reproduced from pages 624 and 625 of McPherson's book.

"Mr Mayor and Gentlemen of the Committee and Fellow Citizens. For this reception you will please accept my most profound and sincere thanks. The compliment is doubtless intended as much, or more, perhaps, in honor of the occasion, and my public position in connection with the great events now crowding upon us, than to me personally and individually. It is however, none the less appreciated by me on that account. We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization . . . one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world--seven States have, within the last three months, thrown off an old Government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact that of it having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. [Fort Sumter happened a couple weeks later] This new constitution or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. . .[omission of material by McPherson not Browning]

Samuel Browning
3rd January 04, 03:10 AM
part II

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last not least: the new constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar instituutions--African slavery as it exists among us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of tthe men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The constitution it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a government built upon it--when the 'storm came and the wind blew, it fell.'

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." [The speach goes on in this vein for another 3/4ths of a page]

Here is the quetion Kung Fools. The newly elected vice president of the confederacy is saying that the most important change in their newly established political system and reason for revolution involves slavery and Lord Acton is essentially saying that the succession concerned state rights. How can the number two leader in the confederacy be wrong about what he is doing while Lord Acton is right?

Kungfoolss
3rd January 04, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Samuel Browning
more important issue of whether the civil war was caused by slavery or non slavery related states rights issues. I will pose this question however that will presumably allow you to exhibit your debating abilities....

part II

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last not least: the new constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar instituutions--African slavery as it exists among us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of tthe men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The constitution it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a government built upon it--when the 'storm came and the wind blew, it fell.'

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." [The speach goes on in this vein for another 3/4ths of a page]

Here is the quetion Kung Fools. The newly elected vice president of the confederacy is saying that the most important change in their newly established political system and reason for revolution involves slavery and Lord Acton is essentially saying that the succession concerned state rights. How can the number two leader in the confederacy be wrong about what he is doing while Lord Acton is right?

(LAUGHS!!!) :D :D :D

You seriously screwed up Sam. I did the research and found a copy of the unedited version of the speech.

Fact of the matter is that you're either a LIAR or the biggest idiot here at Bullshido. Man, talk about getting caught with your pants down. My, my, my. You must have thought you were really being clever with this crap didn't you? Too bad it backfired moron.

Nowhere is it listed in the original text sighting slavery as "the most important change in their newly established political system and reason for revolution" by the newly elected vice president of the Confederacy you stupid idiot. Slavery, as we have always maintained is merely a single issue among many grievances the South had with the North and the speech lists the very sources Lord Acton uses to justify his beliefs in the cause of liberty.

How's that for my debating abilities?

Hey buffoon, here's a simple question for you, what do you suppose he meant when he stated, "allow me to allude to one other-though last not least"? One other. One other. Hmmmmmmmmm.... maybe because there were other reasons he gave for the cause of secession. Face it moron, you screwed up bad.

It's late, so I'll go over it when I get off from work tomorrow evening. You truly are a marvel of towering stupidity aren't you. (Smirks)

Kungfoolss
3rd January 04, 07:00 AM
Yes Sam, if I were you, I'd probably be saying things like, "Oh sh*t" right now. :D

Kungfoolss
3rd January 04, 07:02 AM
And Sam, if you think I'm taunting you and kicking you while you're down... yah, I am. :D

Kungfoolss
3rd January 04, 07:05 AM
Oh Sam, one last thing. It really took you TWO DAYS to come up with that LIE and I took it apart within the span of an hour? You have to admit, that's F'n hilarious. :D

Meteora
3rd January 04, 07:26 AM
Can I get a reader's digest verison of what I all missed in this thread?

blankslate
3rd January 04, 09:37 AM
Nation of Islam is racist and overall whack.

The Civil War was really about state's rights--not slavery.

Debate....

patfromlogan
3rd January 04, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Bolverk
In 1611 Scotish women and children were the first slaves sold in the United States. You have obviously bought into the modern view on slavery.

Why is it that KFLSS and Bolverk resort to insulting? "You have obiously bought into the..." Well, I thought we could have a decent discussion, or even a decent argument. But then what values I have that make me think that resorting to insults is wrong, that becoming personal is wrong, that being condescending and aloof is wrong, are probably from outdated LIBERALISM.

I admire Sam Browning, he can keep responding to insults with logic and refrain from the low road that you and KFLSS seem to be unable to rise up from.

I "bought into" the notion that you are sounding like an ASSHOLE. Fuck you for insulting me. I am perfectly willing to read and learn and I can't imagine, other than you are a mean spirited prick, why you would reduce this to such language. I don't expect honesty or fair techniques from KFLSS, I though more highly of you, Bolverk.

Oh, by the way, your source says 1630, not 1611, and if you notice I'm refraining from a KFLSS or Bolverkian comment about reading material, what a (insulting term, personal insult, inuendo about what you've BOUGHT into etc etc), just pointing it out.

patfromlogan
3rd January 04, 11:49 AM
I did a dogpile search on white slavery (google was wothless) and found a couple of interesting sites:
http://www.interracialvoice.com/powell12.html
Guest Editorial


Introduction to Lawrence R. Tenzer's
The Forgotten Cause of the Civil War: A New Look at the Slavery Issue

"The definitive work on "white" chattel slavery and its political ramifications - Lawrence R. Tenzer's The Forgotten Cause of the Civil War: A New Look at the Slavery Issue (Manahawkin, NJ: Scholars' Publishing House, 1997) - has not been reviewed in any academic journal or even cited in a scholarly bibliography. Any idiot who wants to write fairy tales about mythological "black" Confederate soldiers bravely defending their Southern homeland from the marauding Yankees can find a publisher, but Dr. Tenzer's 21 years of research in PRIMARY documents has been rejected by publishers. Why? Consider these possible reasons:

** The Forgotten Cause answers a question that American historians are always asking but don't really want answered: Why was slavery the great moral and political issue of the antebellum period if it affected only "blacks," a people who were deemed an "inferior race"? If slavery was a threat to "whites" in general, and "white slaves" were recognized as fellow "whites" by Northerners, historians must admit that there was no clear dividing line between the "races." They must acknowledge that Southern slavery was a threat to Americans in general. Neither "liberal" nor "conservative" historians want to admit that.

** Neo-Confederate historians constantly argue in the popular press that the Confederacy fought, not for slavery, but for "states' rights" and against some kind of federal tyranny. Tenzer shows that it was Northern states who exercised their "states' rights" by passing personal liberty laws to nullify the effects of the federal Fugitive Slave Law. This law gave the accused slave, who could be "white," no right to bring witnesses, have a jury, or any other forms of due process. The judge was authorized by the law to receive a larger fee if he ruled against the accused slave than if he ruled in his or her favor. Why do "liberal" historians refuse to publicize these facts when they totally devastate the Neo-Confederate nonsense about an abstract devotion to "states' rights"?"


so if for nothing else, and I hope there is plenty else, I now know what to call KFLSS; a Neo-Conferate historian.

Neo-Confederate nonsense about an abstract devotion to "states' rights"? Buwahahahah, OWNED!

Kungfoolss
3rd January 04, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by patfromlogan

I admire Sam Browning, he can keep responding to insults with logic and refrain from the low road that you and KFLSS seem to be unable to rise up from.


Yes and a pity that Sam's logical retorts have turned out to be nothing but half-truths, spins and lies. :rolleyes:

patfromlogan
3rd January 04, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by patfromlogan
And to (and about) KFLSS:

Ronin asked when I posted that I was going to Hawaii for a few weeks early in Dec "Are you going to meet up with Kungfoolss?"

I replied:

"Nah, he just acted snotty when I asked to meet with him. First he said he'd cripple me, then said I'd have to do detective work to find him! Gee, I guess I'm outa luck. I'll be working out with Universal Kempo/Karate Schools, which he also made fun of. And he made fun of the Kyokushin dojo, so there is just no pleasing the guy. It will ruin my vacation!"

The fellow is odd, indeed. I offered to work out with him or just go have a beer (though I'd prefer a Mai Tai in the House With No Key gazing at Diamond Head, the surf, and the sunset). He is too crazy to want to actually meet or be friends with a fellow martial artist. I feel sorry for him, his obnoxious behavior must mask a lot of pain.

Meteora
3rd January 04, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by blankslate
Nation of Islam is racist and overall whack.

The Civil War was really about state's rights--not slavery.

Debate....


what is there to debate?

nihilist
3rd January 04, 06:00 PM
Virginia Gov. John Letcher's Conditions for Settlement — [Conditions under which Virginia would consider not seceding from the Union]

What, then, is necessary to be done? The Northern States must strike from their statute books their personal liberty bills, and fulfill their constitutional obligations in regard to fugitive slaves and fugitives from justice. If our slaves escape into n n-slaveholding states, they must be delivered up; if abandoned, depraved, and desperately wicked men come into slave States to excite insurrections, or to commit other crimes against our laws, and escape into free States, they must be given up for trial a d punishment, when lawfully demanded by the constituted authorities of those States whose laws have been violated.

Second --- We must have proper and effective guarantees for the protection of slavery in the district of Columbia. We can never consent to the abolition of slavery in the district, until Maryland shall emancipate her slaves; and not then, unless it shall be demanded by the citizens of the district.

Third --- Our equality in the States and Territories must be fully recognized, and our rights of person and property adequately protected and accrued. We must have guarantees that slavery shall not be interdicted in any Territory now belonging to, or which hereafter may be acquired by, the general government; either by the Congress of the United States or by the Territorial Legislature: that we shall be permitted to pass through the free States and Territories without molestation, and if a slave shall b abducted, that the State in which he or she shall be lost, shall pay the full value of such slave to the owner.

Fourth --- Like guarantees must be given, that the transmission of slaves between the slaveholding States, either by land or water, shall not be interfered with.

Fifth --- The passage and enforcement of rigid laws for the punishment of such persons in the free States as shall organize, or aid and abet in organizing, either by the contribution of money, arms, munitions of war, or in any other mode whatsoever, companies of men, with a view to assail the slaveholding States, and to excite slaves to insurrection.

Sixth --- That the general government shall be deprived of the power of appointing to local offices in the slaveholding States, persons who are hostile to their institutions, or inimical to their rights -- the object being to prevent the appointing power from using patronage to sow the seeds of strife and disunion between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding classes in the Southern States.

These guarantees can be given without prejudice to the honor or rights, and without a sacrifice of the interest, of either of the non-slaveholding states. We ask nothing, therefore, which is not clearly right and necessary for our protection: And surely, when so much is at stake, it will be freely, cheerfully and promptly assented to. It is the interest of the North and South to preserve the Government from destruction, and they should omit the use of no proper or honorable means to avert so great a calamity. The public safety and welfare demand instant action.

nihilist
3rd January 04, 06:39 PM
Selected Quotations from 1830-1865
Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb: "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections." [Allan Nevins, The Fruits of Manifest Destiny pages 240-241.] Later in the same letter Benning says, "I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union."
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]
Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia: "There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 56.]
Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."
Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."
Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism." Later in the same speech he said, "The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States." Taken from a photocopy of the Congressional Globe supplied by Steve Miller.
Keitt again, this time as delegate to the South Carolina secession convention, during the debates on the state's declaration of causes: "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it." Taken from the Charleston, South Carolina, Courier, dated Dec. 22, 1860. See the Furman documents site for more transcription from these debates. Keitt became a colonel in the Confederate army and was killed at Cold Harbor on June 1, 1864.
Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina: "The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . . This war is the servant of slavery." [The Glory of God, the Defence of the South (1861), cited in Eugene Genovese's Consuming Fire (1998).]
From the Confederate Constitution:
Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government."
From the Georgia Constitution of 1861:"The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves." (This is the entire text of Article 2, Sec. VII, Paragraph 3.)
From the Alabama Constitution of 1861: "No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country." (This is the entire text of Article IV, Section 1 (on slavery).)
Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]
On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom:
Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]
Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"
Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator from Barnwell: "If the Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not who shall be President, it is not which party shall rule -- it is a question of political and social existence." [Steven Channing, Crisis of Fear, pp. 141-142.]
During the 1830's occurred the Gag Rule controversy in Congress, during which Southern politicians tried to block even the presentation of petitions on the subject of slavery. The following quotes come from speeches made in the House and Senate during this time, taken from William Miller's book, Arguing About Slavery:
John C. Calhoun, Senator from South Carolina: "The defence of human liberty against the aggressions of despotic power have been always the most efficient in States where domestic slavery was to prevail."
James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina: "Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth."
Hammond again, from later in the same speech: "the moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."
Henry Wise, Congressman (and future governor) from Virginia: "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men."
From the diary of James B. Lockney, 28th Wisconsin Infantry, writing near Arkadelphia, Arkansas (10/29/63): "Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country & the foe of the body of the people--the poor whites. They knew the Slave masters got up the war expressly in the interests of the institution, & with no real cause from the Government or the North." [This diary is on-line at: http://userdata.acd.net/jshirey/cw186310.html.]

Southpaw
3rd January 04, 06:43 PM
My god.

Please with the quotes.

nihilist
3rd January 04, 06:45 PM
Judge George Robertson was a lawyer, professor of law, and former Congressman from Kentucky, who had once served as legal counsel for Lincoln in the matter of his father-in-law's will. Robertson at one point gave Lincoln a copy of his speeches and writings on slavery and other topics, and that precipitated this letter.
Text taken from Roy Basler (editor), The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. II, pp. 317-319.


Springfield, Illinois
August 15, 1855
Hon: Geo. Robertson
Lexington, Ky

My Dear Sir:

The volume you left for me has been received. I am really grateful for the honor of your kind remembrance, as well as for the book. The partial reading I have already given it, has afforded me much of both pleasure and instruction. It was new to me that the exact question which led to the Missouri compromise, had arisen before it arose in regard to Missouri; and that you had taken so prominent a part in it. Your short, but able and patriotic speech upon that occasion, has not been improved upon since, by those holding the same views; and, with all the lights you then had, the views you took appear to me as very reasonable.

You are not a friend of slavery in the abstract. In that speech you spoke of "the peaceful extinction of slavery" and used other expressions indicating your belief that the thing was, at some time, to have an end[.] Since then we have had thirty six years of experience; and this experience has demonstrated, I think, that there is no peaceful extinction of slavery in prospect for us. The signal failure of Henry Clay, and other good and great men, in 1849, to effect any thing in favor of gradual emancipation in Kentucky, together with a thousand other signs, extinguishes that hope utterly. On the question of liberty, as a principle, we are not what we have been. When we were the political slaves of King George, and wanted to be free, we called the maxim that "all men are created equal" a self evident truth; but now when we have grown fat, and have lost all dread of being slaves ourselves, we have become so greedy to be masters that we call the same maxim "a self evident lie" The fourth of July has not quite dwindled away; it is still a great day—for burning fire-crackers!!!

That spirit which desired the peaceful extinction of slavery, has itself become extinct, with the occasion, and the men of the Revolution. Under the impulse of that occasion, nearly half the states adopted systems of emancipation at once; and it is a significant fact, that not a single state has done the like since. So far as peaceful, voluntary emancipation is concerned, the condition of the negro slave in America, scarcely less terrible to the contemplation of a free mind, is now as fixed, and hopeless of change for the better, as that of the lost souls of the finally impenitent. The Autocrat of all the Russias will resign his crown, and proclaim his subjects free republicans sooner than will our American masters voluntarily give up their slaves.

Our political problem now is "Can we, as a nation, continue together permanently -- forever -- half slave, and half free?" The problem is too mighty for me. May God, in his mercy, superintend the solution.

Your much obliged friend, and humble servant

A. Lincoln

nihilist
3rd January 04, 06:49 PM
Anyone interested in relevant material can visit this treasure trove:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

Best to use the "all documents"page:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/full.html

Samuel Browning
3rd January 04, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Kungfoolss
(LAUGHS!!!) :D :D :D

You seriously screwed up Sam. I did the research and found a copy of the unedited version of the speech.

Fact of the matter is that you're either a LIAR or the biggest idiot here at Bullshido. Man, talk about getting caught with your pants down. My, my, my. You must have thought you were really being clever with this crap didn't you? Too bad it backfired moron.

Nowhere is it listed in the original text sighting slavery as "the most important change in their newly established political system and reason for revolution" by the newly elected vice president of the Confederacy you stupid idiot. Slavery, as we have always maintained is merely a single issue among many grievances the South had with the North and the speech lists the very sources Lord Acton uses to justify his beliefs in the cause of liberty.

How's that for my debating abilities?

Hey buffoon, here's a simple question for you, what do you suppose he meant when he stated, "allow me to allude to one other-though last not least"? One other. One other. Hmmmmmmmmm.... maybe because there were other reasons he gave for the cause of secession. Face it moron, you screwed up bad.

It's late, so I'll go over it when I get off from work tomorrow evening. You truly are a marvel of towering stupidity aren't you. (Smirks)

Kungfools, when will you learn to understand the use of quotations? The quotations marks around Mr. Stephen's speach indicates his exact words. The words that you quote to show my bad faith are my summery of the meaning of his speech and since they were not added to Stephen's speech there is no deception. Stephens says that he is going to talk about a final topic and that despite bringing it up after others it is no less important then what has come before. (a rhetorical device indicating he's getting down to business) He then says the old US constitution was wrong because its writers had the incorrect idea that "the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature"

Then Stephens says "our government is founded upon exactly the oppositely opposite ideas; its foundation are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Based on Stephens comments above that indicates that the confederacy is founded on slavery, earlier comments in his speech that a revolution has taken place "one of the greatest revolutions in the annuals of the world" and language that indicates in no uncertain terms that this revolutionary development was the South's position on the inequality of man. I can fairly make the statement that Sttephens viewed Slavery as being the most importantt issue in succession.

I noticed Kung Fools that you had not posted a link to your version of this speech. Even though you once again allude to an argument re Lord Acton that uses sections of this speech that you have not cut and pasted onto this board. Please do so, the reader may find it informative to also read the rest of the speech in which Stephens goes after the "anti-slavery fanatics". My version of the speech was obtained from James McPherson's book "Ordeal by Fire: the Civil War and Reconstruction 2nd Ed" for what its worth McPherson teaches at Princeton.

I am simply amazed at your selective reading disorder and your claims that I am a liar or idiot when you do not care enough to actually understand what I wrote. You are definately losing your intellectual edge and living in a fantasy world in which what I argue and what you say I argue are two different things. As I've said earlier I claim that slavery was the trigger for, and by far the most important cause of succession, not its ONLY cause. But go on, you never cease to amuse me.

nihilist
3rd January 04, 07:18 PM
Kudos to Mr. Browning for his gentlemanly conduct and also for the extreme patience and perserverance it takes to digest, understand and post well thought out arguments, rebuttals and relevant sources.

Those causes for secession condensed for the logic impaired:

GEORGIA:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

MISSISSIPPI:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

SOUTH CAROLINA:
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

TEXAS:
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

Samuel Browning
3rd January 04, 08:26 PM
For my next exhibit concerning the argument that Slavery was the trigger and primary cause of the civil war I would like to introduce some quotations from James M. McPherson's book "Ordeal By Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction, 2nd Ed (McGraw Hill, Inc, New York, 1992). McPherson teaches at Princeton University and is considered an expert on the Civil War. For the benefit of Kung Fools' comprehension when I use " " marks, what are contained within are McPherson's words not mine.

"Slavery was the main issue in national politics from 1844 to the outbreak of the civil war. And many times before 1844 this vexed question burst through tthe crust of other issues to set section against section, as in the Missouri debates of 1819-1820. Even the nullificaton crisis of 1832, ostensibly over the tariff, had slavery as its underlying cause. The South Carolina nullifiers feared that the centralization of government power, as manifested by the tarriff, might eventually threaten slavery itself. Nullification was the most extreme assertion of state's rights--a constitutional theory whose fundimental puurpose was to protect slavery against potential federal interference." (pp. 55-56)

"On manifest Destiny and Slavery in the 1850s"

"The real crux of the issue, however was not the the territories already owned but those likely to be acquired in the future. In 1850, an American aged sixty-five had seen the country quadruple in size during his adult life. There was little reason for him to expect this progress to stop. President Pierce's inauugural address pledged furtther annexations. Since a strong power (Britain) controlled the land to the north, the obvious direction for expansion was to the South. Anti slavery congressmen, therefore felt apprehension not only about slavery in existing terriories but even more about slavery in future territtories.

There was a good reason for their apprehension. Proslavery expansionists were casting covetous eyes on Cuba, Central America, and Mexico. Jefferson Davis pressed for the acquisition of Cuba and of additional Mexican territory to 'increase the number of slave-holding constituencies.' His Mississippi Senate colleague, Albert Gallatin Brown, declared: 'I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States . . . and a foothold in Central America . . . Yes, I want these Countries for the spread of Slavery.'" (pp. 75, 76)

Samuel Browning
3rd January 04, 08:52 PM
Later Jefferson Davis, would also condemn the 1807 law banning the importation of slaves as being unconstitutional and demeaning to the south. (p. 113) A couple of years later Davis became the President of the Confederacy.

McPherson quotes Jefferson Davis as saying "We are not engaged in a Quixotic fight for the rights of man; our stuggle is for inherited rights." Jefferson went on to say the South left the union "to save ourselves from a revolution" threatening to make "property in slaves so insecure as to be comparitively worthless." (p. 134)

[SB: Notice that while Davis would claim that the south's acts were not revolutionary unlike his vice president, both agree that the Confederation is being established to protect slavery.]

Just before Lincoln came into office then President Buchanan tried to keep the union together by recommending "a constitutional amendment to protect slavery in the territories and to annul personal liberty laws in Northern states. For good measure, the President reaffirmed his recommendation for the purchase of Cuba which would help alleviate Southern discontent by adding a new slave state to the Union." (p. 138)

[If slavery was not driving succession then why was this Buchanan's offer?]

"Although Lincoln made no public statements during this period, he played a crucial role in preventing concessions on the territorial issue. He quietly passed the word for Republicans to 'entertain no proposition for a compromise in regard to the extension of slavery. The instant you do, they have us under again; all our labor is lost, and sooner or later must be done over.'" (p. 140)

"Lincoln privately assured Southern friends that his administration would not interfere with slavery in the states or district of columbia, would do nothing against the interstate slave trade, would enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, and would urge Northern States to repeal or modify their personal liberty laws. Two Nothern states did take such action during the successionist winter. And with Lincoln's support about two-fifths of the Republicans in Congress joined in the passage of a constitutional amendment to guarantee slavery in the states against future interference by the federal government. But beyond this most Republicans would not go. As Lincoln put it in a December 22 letter to his old friend, Alexander Stevens: 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended: while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub.'

It was indeed the rub. The lower South was seceding because a party that believed slavery wrong had come to power. No compromise could undo this fact. Although many contemporary observers, as well as some historians, believed that the Crittenden Compromise commanded widespread support in the North and upper South it is likely that no conceivable compromise could have stopped sucession in the lower South." (pp. 140-141)

Samuel Browning
3rd January 04, 10:20 PM
Here is the first part of my reply to Kung Fools concerning the relevance of General Lee's views on sucession. I will quote from Douglas Southall Freeman's Book "R.E. Lee: A Biography" Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1934. This is available at: http://www.ku.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/4/17*.html

"These were the conditions in which General Lee received, during December, 1866, a letter from Sir John Dalberg Acton, later Lord Acton. In this letter, the British historian asked for an expression of Lee's views on the constitutional issues involved in secession and on the longer political outlook, in order that he might counsel wisely the editors of a new British review. General Lee took pains with his answer. Apparently, he procured from the library of one of the literary societies a volume on the American Constitution, in order that he might speak by the book, and he referred to several of the newspaper articles he had gathered during the year. He wrote his reply to Acton on December 15, 1866, but as the communication was not published at the time, the existence of the papers was not generally known until the appearance of Lord Acton's Correspondence in 1917. Lee's letter, therefore, cannot be said to have had any appreciable influence on the South or on the determination of the questions with which it dealt, but it is very much the fullest expression of Lee's views and, when read with certain passages from some of his other correspondence, it shows clearly what he thought of the political prospect and how he viewed in retrospect the constitutional issue for which he had fought.

It will be remembered that in 1861 Lee knew little about the constitutional involvements of secession. In one of his few known references to the subject, he confused the preamble of the Articles of Confederation with that of the Constitution of 1787. He went with Virginia on her secession because his whole background, his training, and his social and family ties led him to feel instinctively that his first allegiance, at a time of tragic but inescapable choice, was to her. He held that in her secession Virginia carried him with her. As he fought for the Southern cause, however, he came to see its meaning. Sacrifice clarified it. One cannot say when or how — whether it was by his own reading, or through the debates in winter quarters, or from the contagion of political belief — but Lee absorbed the Southern constitutional argument and was convinced by it. "All that the South has ever desired," he wrote in January, 1866, "was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved; and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." Speaking of his own course, he wrote: "I had no other guide, nor had I any other object than the defense of those principles of American liberty upon which the constitutions of the several states were originally founded." To a friend in the West he wrote in 1869 what in 1866 undoubtedly was his opinion: "I was not in favor of secession, and was opposed to war; in fact . . . I was for the Constitution and the Union established by our forefathers. No one now is more in favor of that Constitution and that Union; and, as far as I know, it is that for which the South has all along contended. . . ."

In this sympathetic portrayal of Robert E. Lee, the author Southall acknowledged that at the time Virginia left the Union, Lee had followed his home state out of instinctive loyalty. Later he created a state's right's argument to support his earlier actions which he shared with Lord Acton. By contrast, the demands of Virginia's governor, which Mike Reese has kindly reproduced, reflect what this Southern State's concerns were at the time it was breaking away from the Union in early 1861. Lee's comments to Acton regarding states rights therefore are questionable because they do not reflect his position at the time he left the union, or the position of Virginia's Governor whose support of sucession was motivated by his support for slavery as an institution.

Samuel Browning
3rd January 04, 10:58 PM
Here is Acton's full letter to Lee obtained from http://www.stringfellowcamp.org/events/acton.html which is a pro-confederacy website. My comments are in [brackets] Note also that this letter was written before Acton was Lord Acton and he had presumably completed his more valuable work.


The Acton-Lee Correspondence

Robert E. Lee
Lord John Dalberg Acton


"Bologna
November 4, 1866

Sir,

The very kind letter which Mrs. Lee wrote to my wife last winter encouraged me to hope that you will forgive my presuming to address you, and that you will not resent as an intrusion a letter from an earnest and passionate lover of the cause whose glory and whose strength you were. [translation: I was a supporter of the Confederacy]

I have been requested to furnish private counsel in American affairs for the guidance of the editors of a weekly Review which is to begin at the New Year, and which will be conducted by men who are followers of Mr. Gladstone. You are aware, no doubt, that Mr. Gladstone was in the minority of Lord Palmerston's cabinet who wished to accept the French Emperor's proposal to mediate in the American war. [Gladstone also supported the confederacy, see Norman A. Graebner's article in Why the North Won the Civil War, p. 71 previously cited in full on his thread]

The reason of the confidence shown in my advice is simply the fact that I formerly traveled in America, and that I afterwards followed the progress of the four years' contest as closely and as keenly as it was possible to do with the partial and unreliable information that reached us. [Here Acton admits he is not working from good information] In the momentous questions which have arisen since you sheathed the sword, I have endeavoured to conform my judgment to your own as well as I could ascertain it from the report of your evidence, from the few English travelers who enjoyed the privilege of speaking with you, and especially from General Beauregard, who spoke, as I understood, your sentiments as well as his own. ["conform my judgment to your own"? that indicates intellectual subserviance and bias] My travels in America never led me south of Maryland, and the only friends to whom I can look for instruction, are Northerners, mostly of Webster's school. [I never even visited the states which made up the confederacy]

In my emergency, urged by the importance of the questions at issue in the United States, and by the peril of misguided public opinion between our two countries, I therefore seek to appeal to southern authorities, and venture at once to proceed to Headquarters. [holy bias Batman]

If, Sir, you will consent to entertain my request, and will inform me of the light in which you would wish the current politics of America to be understood, I can pledge myself that the new Review shall follow the course which you prescribe and that any communication with which you may honor me shall be kept in strictest confidence, and highly treasured by me. Even should you dismiss my request as unwarranted, I trust you will remember it only as an attempt to break through the barrier of false reports and false sympathies which encloses the views of my countrymen. [translation: I'm going to write what you want]

It cannot have escaped you that much of the good will felt in England towards the South, so far as it was not simply the tribute of astonishment and admiration won by your campaigns, was neither unselfish nor sincere. It sprang partly from an exultant belief in the hope that America would be weakened by the separation, and from terror at the remote prospect of Farragut appearing in the channel and Sherman landing in Ireland. [This is delusional]

I am anxious that you should distinguish the feeling which drew me aware toward your cause and your career, and which now guides my pen, from that thankless and unworthy sympathy. [Acton kisses serious ass]

Without presuming to decide the purely legal question, on which it seems evident to me from Madison's and Hamilton's papers that the Fathers of the Constitution were not agreed, I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo. [blessed all races? Also notice that the first part of this paragraph is suggesting the answer Acton wants to hear from Lee]

General Beauregard confirmed to me a report which was in the papers, that you are preparing a narrative of your campaigns. I sincerely trust that it is true, and that the loss you were said to have sustained at the evacuation of Richmond has not deprived you of the requisite materials. European writers are trying to construct that terrible history with the information derived from one side only. I have before me an elaborate work by a Prussian officer named Sander. It is hardly possible that future publications can be more honorable to the reputation of your army and your own. His feelings are strongly Federal, his figures, especially in estimating your forces, are derived from Northern journals, and yet his book ends by becoming an enthusiastic panegyric on your military skill. It will impress you favourably towards the writer to know that he dwells with particular detail and pleasure on your operations against Meade when Longstreet was absent, in the autumn of 1863.

But I have heard the best Prussian military critics regret that they had not the exact data necessary for a scientific appreciation of your strategy, and certainly the credit due to the officers who served under you can be distributed and justified by no hand but your own.

If you will do me the honor to write to me, letters will reach me addressed Sir J. Acton, Hotel [Serry?], Rome.

Meantime I remain, with sentiments stronger than respect, Sir,

~ Your faithful servant
John Dalberg Acton"


[This is to put it mildly a suck-ass letter. Acton writes Lee, admits he didn't have reliable information at the time about the civil war and provides facts indicating that his knowledge of the confederacy was limited. He then mentions Gladstone's name, and says that "I can pledge myself that the new Review shall follow the course which you prescribe" no journalistic independance, and he shows a strong Southern Bias from the start. Acton may have matured into a great historian but this letter is like watching Roger Clemons get shelled while pitching one of his first minor league games. This was simply not a good performance on Acton's part.]

Samuel Browning
3rd January 04, 11:48 PM
This is Robert E. Lee's dignified response to Mr. Acton whose text is contained on the above linked website. It provides the standard state's rights argument which Lee adopted or developed AFTER he had left the Union. Once again [contains my comments] and I have broken Lee's letter into paragraphs to make it more readable.

"Lexington, Vir.,
15 Dec. 1866

Sir,

Although your letter of the 4th ulto. has been before me some days unanswered, I hope you will not attribute it to a want of interest in the subject, but to my inability to keep pace with my correspondence. As a citizen of the South I feel deeply indebted to you for the sympathy you have evinced in its cause, and am conscious that I owe your kind consideration of myself to my connection with it.

The influence of current opinion in Europe upon the current politics of America must always be salutary; and the importance of the questions now at issue the United States, involving not only constitutional freedom and constitutional government in this country, but the progress of universal liberty and civilization, invests your proposition with peculiar value, and will add to the obligation which every true American must owe you for your efforts to guide that opinion aright. Amid the conflicting statements and sentiments in both countries, it will be no easy task to discover the truth, or to relieve it from the mass of prejudice and passion, with which it has been covered by party spirit.

I am conscious the compliment conveyed in your request for my opinion as to the light in which American politics should be viewed, and had I the ability, I have not the time to enter upon a discussion, which was commenced by the founders of the constitution and has been continued to the present day. I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.

I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism. The New England states, whose citizens are the fiercest opponents of the Southern states, did not always avow the opinions they now advocate. Upon the purchase of Louisiana by Mr. Jefferson, they virtually asserted the right of secession through their prominent men; and in the convention which assembled at Hartford in 1814, they threatened the disruption of the Union unless the war should be discontinued. The assertion of this right has been repeatedly made by their politicians when their party was weak, and Massachusetts, the leading state in hostility to the South, declares in the preamble to her constitution, that the people of that commonwealth "have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free sovereign and independent state, and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not, or may hereafter be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled."

Such has been in substance the language of other State governments, and such the doctrine advocated by the leading men of the country for the last seventy years. Judge Chase, the present Chief Justice of the U.S., as late as 1850, is reported to have stated in the Senate, of which he was a member, that he "knew of no remedy in case of the refusal of a state to perform its stipulations," thereby acknowledging the sovereignty and independence of state action. But I will not weary you with this unprofitable discussion. Unprofitable because the judgment of reason has been displaced by the arbitrament of war, waged for the purpose as avowed of maintaining the union of the states. If, therefore, the result of the war is to be considered as having decided that the union of the states is inviolable and perpetual under the constitution, it naturally follows that it is as incompetent for the general government to impair its integrity by the exclusion of a state, as for the states to do so by secession; and that the existence and rights of a state by the constitution are as indestructible as the union itself.

The legitimate consequence then must be the perfect equality of rights of all the states; the exclusive right of each to regulate its internal affairs under rules established by the Constitution, and the right of each state to prescribe for itself the qualifications of suffrage. The South has contended only for the supremacy of the constitution, and the just administration of the laws made in pursuance to it. Virginia to the last made great efforts to save the union, and urged harmony and compromise. [Not exactly true, read the earlier posted demands of their governor. Virginia left the Union on April 17, 1861 three days after the surrender of Fort Sumter where the confederates had opened fire] but before Senator Douglass, in his remarks upon the compromise bill recommended by the committee of thirteen in 1861, stated that every member from the South, including Messrs. Toombs and Davis, expressed their willingness to accept the proposition of Senator Crittenden from Kentucky, as a final settlement of the controversy, if sustained by the republican party, and that the only difficulty in the way of an amicable adjustment was with the republican party. Who then is responsible for the war?

Although the South would have preferred any honorable compromise to the fratricidal war which has taken place, she now accepts in good faith its constitutional results, and receives without reserve the amendment which has already been made to the constitution for the extinction of slavery. That is an event that has been long sought, though in a different way, and by none has it been more earnestly desired than by citizens of Virginia. In other respects I trust that the constitution may undergo no change, but that it may be handed down to succeeding generations in the form we received it from our forefathers. The desire I feel that the Southern states should possess the good opinion of one whom I esteem as highly as yourself, has caused me to extend my remarks farther than I intended, and I fear it has led me to exhaust your patience. If what I have said should serve to give any information as regards American politics, and enable you to enlighten public opinion as to the true interests of this distracted country, I hope you will pardon its prolixity.

In regard to your inquiry as to my being engaged in preparing a narrative of the campaigns in Virginia, I regret to state that I progress slowly in the collection of the necessary documents for its completion. I particularly feel the loss of the official returns showing the small numbers with which the battles were fought. I have not seen the work by the Prussian officer you mention and therefore cannot speak of his accuracy in this respect.- With sentiments of great respect, I remain your obt. servant,


~ R.E. Lee "

[I should also comment on the following few sentences.]

"but before Senator Douglass, in his remarks upon the compromise bill recommended by the committee of thirteen in 1861, stated that every member from the South, including Messrs. Toombs and Davis, expressed their willingness to accept the proposition of Senator Crittenden from Kentucky, as a final settlement of the controversy, if sustained by the republican party, and that the only difficulty in the way of an amicable adjustment was with the republican party. Who then is responsible for the war?"

[The Crittenden compromise placed conditions on the table that were frankly unreasonable.] "The Crittenden Compromise consisted of a series of constitutional amendments: to recognize and protect slavery in all territories south of latitude 36/30' 'now held, or hereafter acquired' while prohibiting it North of that latitude; to prevent Congress from abolishing slavery in the district of columbia or in any national jurisdiction within a slave state (e.g., forts, naval bases, arsenals); to forbid federal interference with the interstate slave trade; and to indemnify owners who were prevented by local opposition from recovering escaped slaves. These amendments were to be perpetually binding, unrepealable and unamendable for all time." (McPherson, p. 139)

"Crittenden believed that his plan could win majority support in both North and South. He proposed that it be submitted to a national referendum. But the Republicans in Congress opposed it. Not only did this 'compromise' repudiate their platform, it also promised to set off a new wave of imperialism in the Caribbean and Central America to expand slavery into the Caribbean and Central America to expand slavery into territories 'hereafter acquired.' Passage of Crittenden's proposal, said Republicans 'would amount to a perpetual covenant of war against every people, tribe, and State owning a foot of land between here and Tierra del Fuego.' It would convert the United States into 'a great slave-breeding and slave extending empire.'" (McPherson, pp. 139-140)

Kungfoolss
4th January 04, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Samuel Browning

I can fairly make the statement that Sttephens viewed Slavery as being the most importantt issue in succession.


No liar, that is your pitiful spin, this is what you actually stated in your challenge to me ->



Here is the quetion Kung Fools. The newly elected vice president of the confederacy is saying that the most important change in their newly established political system and reason for revolution involves slavery and Lord Acton is essentially saying that the succession concerned state rights. How can the number two leader in the confederacy be wrong about what he is doing while Lord Acton is right?


How did you go from backing the text to now, "uhhh...mmmmm, based on what Sttephens says..." Face it moron, you got nailed.



I noticed Kung Fools that you had not posted a link to your version of this speech.


If you weren't so feebleminded Sam, you would have realized that Reese did it for me. (Laughs)

Oh Sam, this will be my last response to you. You're blatantly dishonest and too much of a coward to admit you got beat. I have no time for such petty individuals such as yourself. I just hope you don't have children because you're a terrible role model and disgusting human being. Good-bye and good riddance.

Folks, what Sam has done here is engage in intellectual dishonesty, purposely omitting relevant material in a slimy effort to make his fraudulent case. He got caught.

Now, he wants to revise history stating that he didn't know any better and was only going off of what his source had printed. Yes, quite a shift in positions from one of affirmation and personal challenges to the sniveling uncertain toad I've always suspected him to be. Stupidity and ignorance is not an excuse Sam.

Sam, you issued a challenge based on biased information, that your source had purposefully skewed the data to fit his political agenda. Why was the complete text missing, the most important and relevant elements proving that secession was not predicated on the issue of slavery alone. Those sections were not reported, and instead the emphasis was focused solely a single political issue, slavery. That is outrageous and you should be ashamed for perpetrating and encouraging this charade.

On the following post will be the Truth Sam sought to hide from everyone to make his erroneous case. Check it out.

Kungfoolss
4th January 04, 01:39 AM
The missing parts of the Cornerstone Speech Savannah; Georgia, March 21, 1861 by by Vice President Alexander H. Stephens.

"...This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. [Applause.]

This new constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark. It amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. [Applause.] Some changes have been made. Of these I shall speak presently. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but these, perhaps, meet the cordial approbation of a majority of this audience, if not an overwhelming majority of the people of the Confederacy. Of them, therefore, I will not speak. But other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.]

Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new. [Applause.]

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one-it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question, upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than twenty-five millions of dollars. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and equipments of our roads, was borne by those who entered on the enterprise. Nay, more-not only the cost of the iron, no small item in the aggregate cost, was borne in the same way-but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere?

The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefitted by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice. [Applause.] And it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.

Another feature to which I will allude, is that the new constitution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives-may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration. I should have preferred that this provision should have gone further, and required the President to select his constitutional advisers from the Senate and House of Representatives. That would have conformed entirely to the practice in the British Parliament, which, in my judgment, is one of the wisest provisions in the British constitution. It is the only feature that saves that government. It is that which gives it stability in its facility to change its administration. Ours, as it is, is a great approximation to the right principle.

Under the old constitution, a secretary of the treasury for instance, had no opportunity, save by his annual reports, of presenting any scheme or plan of finance or other matter. He had no opportunity of explaining, expounding, inforcing, or defending his views of policy; his only resort was through the medium of an organ. In the British parliament, the premier brings in his budget and stands before the nation responsible for its every item. If it is indefensible, he falls before the attacks upon it, as he ought to. This will now be the case to a limited extent under our system. In the new constitution, provision has been made by which our heads of departments can speak for themselves and the administration, in behalf of its entire policy, without resorting to the indirect and highly objectionable medium of a newspaper. It is to be greatly hoped that under our system we shall never have what is known as a government organ. [Rapturous applause.]

[A noise again arose from the clamor of the crowd outside, who wished to hear Mr. Stephens, and for some moments interrupted him. The mayor rose and called on the police to preserve order. Quiet being restored, Mr. S. proceeded.]

Another change in the constitution relates to the length of the tenure of the presidential office. In the new constitution it is six years instead of four, and the President rendered ineligible for a re-election. This is certainly a decidedly conservative change. It will remove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition. The only incentive to that higher ambition which should move and actuate one holding such high trusts in his hands, will be the good of the people, the advancement, prosperity, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of the confederacy. [Applause.]

But not to be tedious in enumerating...."

Samuel Browning
4th January 04, 11:46 AM
And the rest of the speech is as follows:

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made "one star to differ from another star in glory."

The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to his laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" -- the real "corner-stone" -- in our new edifice. [Applause.]

Samuel Browning
4th January 04, 11:48 AM
I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph. [Immense applause.]

Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that "in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread," [applause,] and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.

But to pass on: Some have propounded the inquiry whether it is practicable for us to go on with the confederacy without further accessions? Have we the means and ability to maintain nationality among the powers of the earth? On this point I would barely say, that as anxiously as we all have been, and are, for the border States, with institutions similar to ours, to join us, still we are abundantly able to maintain our position, even if they should ultimately make up their minds not to cast their destiny with us. That they ultimately will join us-be compelled to do it -- is my confident belief; but we can get on very well without them, even if they should not.

We have all the essential elements of a high national career. The idea has been given out at the North, and even in the border States, that we are too small and too weak to maintain a separate nationality. This is a great mistake. In extent of territory we embrace five hundred and sixty-four thousand square miles and upward. This is upward of two hundred thousand square miles more than was included within the limits of the original thirteen States. It is an area of country more than double the territory of France or the Austrian empire. France, in round numbers, has but two hundred and twelve thousand square miles. Austria, in round numbers, has two hundred and forty-eight thousand square miles. Ours is greater than both combined. It is greater than all France, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain, including England, Ireland, and Scotland, together. In population we have upward of five millions, according to the census of 1860; this includes white and black. The entire population, including white and black, of the original thirteen States, was less than four millions in 1790, and still less in '76, when the independence of our fathers was achieved. If they, with a less population, dared maintain their independence against the greatest power on earth, shall we have any apprehension of maintaining ours now?

In point of material wealth and resources, we are greatly in advance of them. The taxable property of the Confederate States cannot be less than twenty-two hundred millions of dollars! This, I think I venture but little in saying, may be considered as five times more than the colonies possessed at the time they achieved their independence. Georgia, alone, possessed last year, according to the report of our comptroller-general, six hundred and seventy-two millions of taxable property. The debts of the seven confederate States sum up in the aggregate less than eighteen millions, while the existing debts of the other of the late United States sum up in the aggregate the enormous amount of one hundred and seventy-four millions of dollars. This is without taking into account the heavy city debts, corporation debts, and railroad debts, which press, and will continue to press, as a heavy incubus upon the resources of those States. These debts, added to others, make a sum total not much under five hundred millions of dollars. With such an area of territory as we have-with such an amount of population-with a climate and soil unsurpassed by any on the face of the earth-with such resources already at our command-with productions which control the commerce of the world-who can entertain any apprehensions as to our ability to succeed, whether others join us or not?

It is true, I believe I state but the common sentiment, when I declare my earnest desire that the border States should join us. The differences of opinion that existed among us anterior to secession, related more to the policy in securing that result by co-operation than from any difference upon the ultimate security we all looked to in common.

These differences of opinion were more in reference to policy than principle, and as Mr. Jefferson said in his inaugural, in 1801, after the heated contest preceding his election, there might be differences of opinion without differences on principle, and that all, to some extent, had been federalists and all republicans; so it may now be said of us, that whatever differences of opinion as to the best policy in having a co-operation with our border sister slave States, if the worst came to the worst, that as we were all co-co-operationists, we are now all for independence, whether they come or not. [Continued applause.]

In this connection I take this occasion to state, that I was not without grave and serious apprehensions, that if the worst came to the worst, and cutting loose from the old government should be the only remedy for our safety and security, it would be attended with much more serious ills than it has been as yet. Thus far we have seen none of those incidents which usually attend revolutions. No such material as such convulsions usually throw up has been seen. Wisdom, prudence, and patriotism, have marked every step of our progress thus far. This augurs well for the future, and it is a matter of sincere gratification to me, that I am enabled to make the declaration. Of the men I met in the Congress at Montgomery, I may be pardoned for saying this, an abler, wiser, a more conservative, deliberate, determined, resolute, and patriotic body of men, I never met in my life. [Great applause.] Their works speak for them; the provisional government speaks for them; the constitution of the permanent government will be a lasting monument of their worth, merit, and statesmanship. [Applause.]

But to return to the question of the future. What is to be the result of this revolution?

Will every thing, commenced so well, continue as it has begun? In reply to this anxious inquiry, I can only say it all depends upon ourselves. A young man starting out in life on his majority, with health, talent, and ability, under a favoring Providence, may be said to be the architect of his own fortunes. His destinies are in his own hands. He may make for himself a name, of honor or dishonor, according to his own acts. If he plants himself upon truth, integrity, honor and uprightness, with industry, patience and energy, he cannot fail of success. So it is with us. We are a young republic, just entering upon the arena of nations; we will be the architects of our own fortunes. Our destiny, under Providence, is in our own hands. With wisdom, prudence, and statesmanship on the part of our public men, and intelligence, virtue and patriotism on the part of the people, success, to the full measures of our most sanguine hopes, may be looked for. But if unwise counsels prevail-if we become divided-if schisms arise-if dissensions spring up-if factions are engendered-if party spirit, nourished by unholy personal ambition shall rear its hydra head, I have no good to prophesy for you. Without intelligence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism on the part of the people, no republic or representative government can be durable or stable.

We have intelligence, and virtue, and patriotism. All that is required is to cultivate and perpetuate these. Intelligence will not do without virtue. France was a nation of philosophers. These philosophers become Jacobins. They lacked that virtue, that devotion to moral principle, and that patriotism which is essential to good government Organized upon principles of perfect justice and right-seeking amity and friendship with all other powers-I see no obstacle in the way of our upward and onward progress. Our growth, by accessions from other States, will depend greatly upon whether we present to the world, as I trust we shall, a better government than that to which neighboring States belong. If we do this, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas cannot hesitate long; neither can Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. They will necessarily gravitate to us by an imperious law. We made ample provision in our constitution for the admission of other States; it is more guarded, and wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the same subject, but not too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper. Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do so, our doors are wide enough to receive them, but not until they are ready to assimilate with us in principle.

The process of disintegration in the old Union may be expected to go on with almost absolute certainty if we pursue the right course. We are now the nucleus of a growing power which, if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and high mission, will become the controlling power on this continent. To what extent accessions will go on in the process of time, or where it will end, the future will determine. So far as it concerns States of the old Union, this process will be upon no such principles of reconstruction as now spoken of, but upon reorganization and new assimilation. [Loud applause.] Such are some of the glimpses of the future as I catch them.

Samuel Browning
4th January 04, 11:49 AM
But at first we must necessarily meet with the inconveniences and difficulties and embarrassments incident to all changes of government. These will be felt in our postal affairs and changes in the channel of trade. These inconveniences, it is to be hoped, will be but temporary, and must be borne with patience and forbearance.

As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been.

The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln's inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would fain hope the former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is, keep your armor bright and your powder dry. [Enthusiastic cheering.]

The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States -- the republican party -- present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch "of the accursed soil." Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution -- and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund, necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after -- though they come from the labor of the slave. [Continued applause.]

Mr. Stephens reviewed at some length, the extravagance and profligacy of appropriations by the Congress of the United States for several years past, and in this connection took occasion to allude to another one of the great improvements in our new constitution, which is a clause prohibiting Congress from appropriating any money from the treasury, except by a two-third vote, unless it be for some object which the executive may say is necessary to carry on the government.

When it is thus asked for, and estimated for, he continued, the majority may appropriate. This was a new feature.

Our fathers had guarded the assessment of taxes by insisting that representation and taxation should go together. This was inherited from the mother country, England. It was one of the principles upon which the revolution had been fought. Our fathers also provided in the old constitution, that all appropriation bills should originate in the representative branch of Congress, but our new constitution went a step further, and guarded not only the pockets of the people, but also the public money, after it was taken from their pockets.

He alluded to the difficulties and embarrassments which seemed to surround the question of a peaceful solution of the controversy with the old government. How can it be done? is perplexing many minds. The President seems to think that he cannot recognize our independence, nor can he, with and by the advice of the Senate, do so. The constitution makes no such provision. A general convention of all the States has been suggested by some.
Without proposing to solve the difficulty, he barely made the following suggestion:

"That as the admission of States by Congress under the constitution was an act of legislation, and in the nature of a contract or compact between the States admitted and the others admitting, why should not this contract or compact be regarded as of like character with all other civil contracts -- liable to be rescinded by mutual agreement of both parties? The seceding States have rescinded it on their part, they have resumed their sovereignty. Why cannot the whole question be settled, if the north desire peace, simply by the Congress, in both branches, with the concurrence of the President, giving their consent to the separation, and a recognition of our independence?" This he merely offered as a suggestion, as one of the ways in which it might be done with much less violence by constructions to the constitution than many other acts of that government. [Applause.] The difficulty has to be solved in some way or other -- this may be regarded as a fixed fact.

Several other points were alluded to by Mr. Stephens, particularly as to the policy of the new government toward foreign nations, and our commercial relations with them. Free trade, as far as practicable, would be the policy of this government. NO higher duties would be imposed on foreign importations than would be necessary to support the government upon the strictest economy.

In olden times the olive branch was considered the emblem of peace; we will send to the nations of the earth another and far more potential emblem of the same, the cotton plant. The present duties were levied with a view of meeting the present necessities and exigencies, in preparation for war, if need be; but if we have peace, and he hoped we might, and trade should resume its proper course, a duty of ten per cent. upon foreign importations it was thought might be sufficient to meet the expenditures of the government. If some articles should be left on the free list, as they now are, such as breadstuffs, etc., then, of course, duties upon others would have to be higher -- but in no event to an extent to embarrass trade and commerce. He concluded in an earnest appeal for union and harmony, on part of all the people in support of the common cause, in which we were all enlisted, and upon the issues of which such great consequences depend.

If, said he, we are true to ourselves, true to our cause, true to our destiny, true to our high mission, in presenting to the world the highest type of civilization ever exhibited by man -- there will be found in our lexicon no such word as fail.

Mr. Stephens took his seat, amid a burst of enthusiasm and applause, such as the Athenaeum has never had displayed within its walls, within "the recollection of the oldest inhabitant."

[REPORTER'S NOTE. -- Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the orator. -- G.]"

Samuel Browning
4th January 04, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Kungfoolss
No liar, that is your pitiful spin, this is what you actually stated in your challenge to me ->



How did you go from backing the text to now, "uhhh...mmmmm, based on what Sttephens says..." Face it moron, you got nailed.



If you weren't so feebleminded Sam, you would have realized that Reese did it for me. (Laughs)

Oh Sam, this will be my last response to you. You're blatantly dishonest and too much of a coward to admit you got beat. I have no time for such petty individuals such as yourself. I just hope you don't have children because you're a terrible role model and disgusting human being. Good-bye and good riddance.

Folks, what Sam has done here is engage in intellectual dishonesty, purposely omitting relevant material in a slimy effort to make his fraudulent case. He got caught.

Now, he wants to revise history stating that he didn't know any better and was only going off of what his source had printed. Yes, quite a shift in positions from one of affirmation and personal challenges to the sniveling uncertain toad I've always suspected him to be. Stupidity and ignorance is not an excuse Sam.

Sam, you issued a challenge based on biased information, that your source had purposefully skewed the data to fit his political agenda. Why was the complete text missing, the most important and relevant elements proving that secession was not predicated on the issue of slavery alone. Those sections were not reported, and instead the emphasis was focused solely a single political issue, slavery. That is outrageous and you should be ashamed for perpetrating and encouraging this charade.

On the following post will be the Truth Sam sought to hide from everyone to make his erroneous case. Check it out.

Actually Kung Fools if you looked at my first post with the Stephen's speech you would have noticed that I specifically pointed out in [brackets] where McPherson had edited the text of the speech (of which there are several different versions since it was not written down by Stephens before he gave it) . Since the entire speech goes multiple pages (and posts) its understandable why McPherson cut to the heart of the speech.

I am glad that you referred to this speech by its nickname, the "cornerstone speech" and the reason it is called the cornerstone speech is because of its most important language, re slavery both in McPherson's version, and the internet version that we are now using which says

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Is it spin to say that this speech that enumerated this most important difference between the Union and Confederacy therefore supports slavery as the most important reason for sucession? No. Reading the full text of the speech shows that Stephens gave slavery such a pivotal and revolutionary role. Oops Stephens actually used the word "revolution" instead of revolutionary, does this mean that I lied again? In your delusional world yes but in real life no.

You may be interested to read Robert H. Jones, "Disrupted Decades: The Civil War and Reconstruction Years" (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1973) pp. 170-171 In his book this Professor of History at the University of Akron cites the following words from this speech to show that slavery was the cause of sucession. "African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

Your repeated comments that I am engaging in spin, lying, and all other personal insults follows the old saying, if the facts are against you, go with the law, if the law is against you go with the facts, if both are against you attack the other advocate.

You do not attempt to respond to the text of various succession statements issued by states, or governors, or address the comments of Abe Lincoln nor bail out your hero Mr. Acton when I posted the text of his embarrassing letter to General Lee. You said I also had fraudulent case Mr. Fools, therefore you should be able to back that allegation, but nope, you are leaving this thread so you don't have to address any of the other material that proves the case I, and Mike Reese and Pat argue.

Your personal attacks are bizarre and quite frankly indicate a troubled mind. I have to feel sorry for you sitting in your computer room since you appear to be too afraid even to leave to meet Pat, a man possibly twice your age for a beer when he visits Hawaii. Hopefully you will stay and argue the assembled documentary material with us because your posts while rude are rarely boring.

nihilist
4th January 04, 09:24 PM
KF has once again attacked someones character and scampered off.

poet
4th January 04, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by mike reese
KF has once again attacked someones character and scampered off.
No, like the cockroach he is hiding out there somewhere.

Kungfoolss
5th January 04, 02:44 AM
Man, that ignore feature is great, with a click of a button I was able to remove the ceaseless flow of diarrhea coming out of both reese's and Sam's mouths from cluttering up my screen.

I really must thank Phrost for that. Thanks Phrost. :cool:

nihilist
5th January 04, 02:49 AM
I am just glad that I could somehow be a part of your self aggrandizement you Machiavellian poser.

patfromlogan
5th January 04, 12:56 PM
"African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." - Stephens.

Sounds like you are owned to me, Kungfoolss. I like your technique of ignoring others. Since you use it for Sam and Mike, you can add me and everyone else who disagrees with you. Soon you will be very lonely on Bullshido, having only a couple of members to read.


Poor nutty little man, afraid to even meet me in Hawaii. Afraid to acknowledge he just might be wrong. Poor little nut case.

For the very last time, I'll paste in my comments on you. Looking at it again makes me think that actually you are the manifestation of everything Bullshido is AGAINST. Other members get together at the throwdowns. Other members talk about their schools and personal histories and matches and fights they have had. Other members are real people.

You hide.

You betray the openness, honesty and camaraderie that Bullshido exemplifies.





I won't bother ever pasting this again. Perhaps you could ask yourself why you are so afraid. I'm afraid that you will just give me no reply, or a snide devious one.



Ronin asked when I posted that I was going to Hawaii for a few weeks early in Dec "Are you going to meet up with Kungfoolss?"

I replied:

"Nah, he just acted snotty when I asked to meet with him. First he said he'd cripple me, then said I'd have to do detective work to find him! Gee, I guess I'm outa luck. I'll be working out with Universal Kempo/Karate Schools, which he also made fun of. And he made fun of the Kyokushin dojo, so there is just no pleasing the guy. It will ruin my vacation!"

The fellow is odd, indeed. I offered to work out with him or just go have a beer (though I'd prefer a Mai Tai in the House With No Key gazing at Diamond Head, the surf, and the sunset). He is too crazy to want to actually meet or be friends with a fellow martial artist. I feel sorry for him, his obnoxious behavior must mask a lot of pain.

Ronin
5th January 04, 12:59 PM
Racisim and in-tolerances of ANY group is a sad thing and should never be tolerated.
But I am all for free speach and expression, because it allowa us to see the REAL threat(s) out there.

nihilist
5th January 04, 01:30 PM
Arrogance hides low self esteem.

Remember the "Great and powerful Oz"?

If KF breaks character or somehow exposes himself, his house of cards falls.

He relies on his carefully constructed facade to keep the world at bey so that he doesn't have to face the truth: that he is probably just an average person in every sense of the word except that he lacks compassion, integrity, emotional maturity and any real courage .

Until he comes out from behind his curtain of macho, pompous, pretensious self-glorifying bravado, most intelligent people will simply see him as an overcompensating coward.

Samuel Browning
5th January 04, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Kungfoolss
Man, that ignore feature is great, with a click of a button I was able to remove the ceaseless flow of diarrhea coming out of both reese's and Sam's mouths from cluttering up my screen.

I really must thank Phrost for that. Thanks Phrost. :cool:

Aw, Kung, you could always thank Phost by sending him $20 then you wouldn't be so cheap.

That so called "diarrhea" from Mike and I was actually a torrent of primary historical documents and commentary by various historians. I thought you said that you had posted your last response to me, I feel so honored that you have broken your word. Care to address any of our other documents from the era?

I am glad that you introduced me to the Lord Acton/General Lee correspondence. I would have never imagined that your hero Acton was such a biased suck up, I give Lee credit for having the patience to put up with him just as I give the Petersons credit for putting up with your presence. Someday if I ever meet Jerry or Blake Peterson I will have to ask them if they have ever considered having you put out of your misery given the animosity you have stirred up against their program.

You are a worse oxygen thief then my regular criminal clients.

Dochter
5th January 04, 06:05 PM
Random comments on several of the points:

I tend to think that slavery was certainly an important (if not most important) issue in the start of the civil war, this certainly seems to be borne out by what I read of Sam's posts. I do wonder however whether this issue was more emphasized for the purposes of increasing support among the south's population or if it was such a key political issue.

I'd also like to say that all of Amp's points (buffalo soilders etc.) were actually covered in my public school history classes, though they were AP classes.

While slavery as a formal insititution ended long ago its reprecussions extend through today, de facto segregation is also in place in many localities. Reperations are in my opinion ridiculous though, instead efficient funding of social programs in low-income areas are the way to go. This also would benefit not just those of one race but all those in poverty which they may of their own volition not be able to escape.

The Nation of Islam is a bunch of nutters, that is a simple fact. The Black Panthers (as I recall from readings) have a different history. At the beginning they certainly had some valuable ideals, but were quickly pulled by extremists away from these and also eventually became heavily involved in drug trafficing. The combination of these prevented either their widespred effect and appeal as well as distorting their goals.

Samuel Browning
5th January 04, 09:07 PM
Hi Dochter

"I tend to think that slavery was certainly an important (if not most important) issue in the start of the civil war, this certainly seems to be borne out by what I read of Sam's posts. I do wonder however whether this issue was more emphasized for the purposes of increasing support among the south's population or if it was such a key political issue.'

I think what you are asking is whether slavery was used as a rallying point for the population as a whole while the political elite were actually motivated by other issues like teriffs and they used slavery as a unifying theme to draw support from the general white population. The short answer is no and one reason we know this is that in the months preceding the secession, the negotiations in the House of Representives and Senate to preserve the Union, (carried out in the committee of thirty three [house]and committee of thirteen [senate]) universally came down to the southerner politicians saying we want X, Y, and Z to protect slavery and expand it into other territories and the Republicans said, we can give you X, (say enforcement of the fugative slave act) but not Y, and Z (territories below a 36/30 enter as slave states and this is a permanantly binding constitutional amendment) and the South then left the union. All the conditions being debated concerned slavery. My examples of such proposals such as the Crittendon compromise are littered through this thread. But if you would like more detail I can write more tomarrow. I'm posted out this weekend but I could always cobble together a more lengthy post if you would like to see more proof. (Oh my god, stop him before he writes again:)

Dochter
5th January 04, 09:25 PM
good enough.

keep up the good fight, though I don't promise to read all of it.

Southpaw
5th January 04, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
I'd also like to say that all of Amp's points (buffalo soilders etc.) were actually covered in my public school history classes, though they were AP classes.



That's actually really great. Though I often worry less about whether certain topics are covered and more about how they are covered.

Dochter
5th January 04, 10:04 PM
It was quite awhile ago and I know little of the current status of high school history classes.

I'm sure some of my instruction was a little out of the norm since one of our text's was by howard zinn

Southpaw
5th January 04, 10:19 PM
Than you truely are lucky because Zinn is the man!

Was your school system unusually good?

Bolverk
6th January 04, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by patfromlogan
Why is it that KFLSS and Bolverk resort to insulting? "You have obiously bought into the..." Well, I thought we could have a decent discussion, or even a decent argument. But then what values I have that make me think that resorting to insults is wrong, that becoming personal is wrong, that being condescending and aloof is wrong, are probably from outdated LIBERALISM.

I admire Sam Browning, he can keep responding to insults with logic and refrain from the low road that you and KFLSS seem to be unable to rise up from.

I "bought into" the notion that you are sounding like an ASSHOLE. Fuck you for insulting me. I am perfectly willing to read and learn and I can't imagine, other than you are a mean spirited prick, why you would reduce this to such language. I don't expect honesty or fair techniques from KFLSS, I though more highly of you, Bolverk.

Oh, by the way, your source says 1630, not 1611, and if you notice I'm refraining from a KFLSS or Bolverkian comment about reading material, what a (insulting term, personal insult, inuendo about what you've BOUGHT into etc etc), just pointing it out.

Try this source Patfromlogan. (http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html)

As far as insulting anyone, I think that may be your perspective only. I never insulted nor intended to insult anyone. In fact, I feel it is more of an insult to me to hear all of this misinformation about slavery, who it affected, and how it continues today (funny how no one ever mentions the black on black slave trade still alive in some African Nations today). Life sucks sometimes, get over it and get on with life.

You can not change society over night, but in the United States, it changes faster and more equitably then anywhere else in the world. Lets keep working on the positive changes rather then using the past as a means to divide us. We can find a lot of common ground in our pasts, and that is what we should be doing.

Dochter
6th January 04, 11:29 AM
Amp, actually no. There were a handful of teachers that were good on that end of things. In contrast there were 5-10 times the number of esl classes as there were ap classes. It was also one of the poorer (demagraphic wise) schools in the area. What about four of the teachers were doing there is anyone's guess.

It has unfortunately by all accounts gotten worse in the ~9 years since I graduated.

Samuel Browning
6th January 04, 01:44 PM
Hi Bolverk, I will be happy to respond to your source which speaks in measured tones however it will take a couple days because of job related responsibilities. take care.

patfromlogan
6th January 04, 03:43 PM
Bolverk, I'm sorry I got so pissed, you really don't deserve it. Kungfoolsss had been calling people liars, idiots, and worse and I just over reacted to the "bought into" statement. I consider that phrase offensive because it suggests that one has been suckered into believing in a particular ideology, and defends it because of a belief system, rather than based on logic or morality.

The first site did say 1630, the one link now says 1611. I do find the information on white European slavery very interesting. It was nothing I learned in school, and I was a graduate student and took classes in Colonial and Revolutionary America. I did a little research on line and their seems to be very little out there on the subject.

By the way, my great-grandfather was Scottish, I was told, then as an adult I learned the truth; that he was Irish and the Brits had money on his head for revolutionary crimes. So for generations the family had gotten used to lying about it.

Bolverk
7th January 04, 12:37 PM
Patfromlogan, its cool.

The reason the whole slavery issue revolves around blacks and not whites is political. It serves no ones interest to expose the issue of white slavery. However, the issue of black slavery serves a multitude of political interests, so it is kept on the front burner, so to speak.

To me, the issue boils down to how we can further erase the ethnic lines in America. In the 70's things were not like they are today. Diversity and social interaction was common here where I live, but that has changed over the decades and people seem more split. It could be that I was seeing the world through rose colored glasses in the 70's. It is a difficult issue, with no easy solutions. But it is a goal that is more then worth striving to accomplish. Getting there may be a bit bumpy though.

By finding the common ground between us, such as the fact that we all suffered along the road to our current civilization, we may be able to bridge the gulf. I could be wrong, but it is worth considering.

Southpaw
7th January 04, 10:46 PM
Bolverk...I'd have to disagree. The issue revolves around blacks not whites because tens of millions of blacks were taken from Africa to be slaves. Though there were white slaves, the numbers were significantly less.

JMO

Osiris
7th January 04, 10:48 PM
No dehuminization aspect with the white slaves. Nor nearly as many.

Southpaw
7th January 04, 10:55 PM
True dat.

Hedgehogey
7th January 04, 11:40 PM
The reason the whole slavery issue revolves around blacks and not whites is political. It serves no ones interest to expose the issue of white slavery. However, the issue of black slavery serves a multitude of political interests, so it is kept on the front burner, so to speak.>>>

God fucking damnit.

If you grew up seeing the kind of conditions black people live in today you wouldn't say that.

Blacks, for the most part, still live in the worst housing in the worst neighborhoods, get the second worst jobs (above illegal immigrant latinos) and the worst treatment by the police.

It's not my intent to diminish white slavery, but it's so often brought up by people who want to diminish the suffering of black people in the past and is still going on TODAY.

I support the struggles of the irish, though.

There aren't any white slave descendent ghettoes, however.

patfromlogan
8th January 04, 12:14 AM
Question would be how long did the Whites stay in slavery? Did the children and grandchildren of the Scots remain as slaves like the Black slaves did for generation after generation? And to confuse the issue remember there were some White, or white looking slaves in the South at the time of the Civil War.

Bolverk
8th January 04, 02:29 PM
The better question is this, how many Black Slave owners lived in the south prior to and through out the civil war?

As far as how long the Scots remain slaves, and for how many generations. Well they remained in slavery until the dispute was settled. I am not sure of the issue of generations, but if you were born to a slave you were born into slavery, since slaves were considered property.

Dochter
8th January 04, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Amp
Bolverk...I'd have to disagree. The issue revolves around blacks not whites because tens of millions of blacks were taken from Africa to be slaves. Though there were white slaves, the numbers were significantly less.

JMO

Read, repeat, read, repeat, read, repeat.

Keep feeling bad for yourself bolverk.

Bolverk
8th January 04, 03:02 PM
The whole point Dochter is that I don't feel bad for myself. And I think the way slavery is being presented today is destructive to the fabric of this nation. The facts of slavery are not completly on the table, and everyone is under the belief that only whites owned slaves and that only blacks were slaves. This is utter bullshit, and perpetuates many sterotypes, bad feelings and violence in our society. When the real truth about slavery is put on the table, including all the facts, we can see that we have more in common then we realize. Only by doing this can we put the issue to rest as a nation.

Bolverk
8th January 04, 03:14 PM
And to Amp, the issue revolves around slavery. As far as the number of slaves in relation to each other, that is not significant. Slavery is slavery, and the fact that you want to minimalize the numbers is what has no signficance to the issue. However, the ignoring of White Slavery serves to prepetuate the current beliefs on the subject, and is very significant to the subject as a whole.

Osiris
8th January 04, 03:21 PM
Oh please. For all intents and purposes only whites owned slaves and only blackes were slaves. Yes, there were exceptions, but what the rule was is certainly clear. To suggest that whites and african americans were equally involved on all levels is ridiculous. Thevast majority of owners were white and the vast majority of slaves were black. The triangle trade wasnt going through Scotland last I checked. Also, when have you ever heard the claim that the Irish or whatever werent even human? Ok. The tragedy of slavery was not the mere enslavement of humans. Thats happened all over the place to all types of people. The tragedy of slavery is the dehuminization of an entire race and the sabatoging of the mental, economic, cultural and social status of the community.

Bolverk
8th January 04, 03:48 PM
Osiris, I never once suggested that the number of Black Slave owners was equal to the number of White Slave owners. However, a significant number of Blacks did own slaves. In fact a greater percentage of Blacks as a population owned slaves when compared to the white population, but the reasons varied for Slave ownership among Blacks. So why do people ignore this fact? It is a matter of history, but it is never taught.

The dehumanazation of an entire race? I don't think so. There have definately been some blights on the history of this nation in relation to the way Black were treated, and in some periods Blacks have even been dehumanized, though to suggest that is the case today is a stretch of the imagination. The Irish also suffered this in their history, though obviously for not the same length of time. Today, I would gladly invite either race to my house for dinner and a movie.

The real tragedy is that slavery is used as a wedge between whites and blacks to this very day. Not in the sense of dehumanization, but as a means to divide and conquer. There is no good reason to allow people to put a wedge between us. We have suffered many common problems, and we should use it as a means to bring us together, not to widen the gulf. We are perpetuating the problem, not solving it. This very fact can be seen in the tone of your response, and how you marginalize the fact that some Blacks were slave owners.

Stick
8th January 04, 03:56 PM
Well then, I suppose that during the 700 some odd years of being trampled by England, the Irish- my ancestors- were always considered good an' human, mostly..... so nothing to complain about there, not a bit at all.

Thing is, as much as I may want to identify with that, fact is I'm a mut. I may be mostly Irish but my blood includes English as well, native American, German, Portugese, and a hefty dose of the Ukraine...... I cannot be the victim, nor can I be the victimizer.

Though my mixed heritage brings up an interesting point against the idea of reperations against private citizens; my father's side of the family has only been in this country since 1905 while my mother's has been here since the 1600's. I'm fairly certain that family on my mother's side owned slaves at some point, but on my father's.... well, we didn't leave Ireland because the English were giving away free chocolate and vanilla ice cream and we couldn't get 'em to include some cookies n' cream. Should my tax money go to reperations? Should my grandfather on my father's side have his tax money go into reperations?

I can't actually recall whether anyone here supports the idea of personal reperations, just thought I'd spit that out there. Brought it up in a debate in sociology class and the other side had no response.

Anywho.....

Interracial/ethnic marriages for all! I'm getting sick of this division, and even more sick of trying to persecute the ancestors of criminals for their forebarers' crimes!

Impressive posts BTW Sam. Slavery was not the sole issue, but very important IMO. I was taught around the "states rights" idea with slavery being the key "state right".

Kingston
8th January 04, 03:58 PM
a significant number of Blacks did own slaves

..... in north america? i highly dout it.

and isn't it 'Slavery in north america' that is the issue here...?

Edit: iv only read this last page... i honestly dont know.

Bolverk
8th January 04, 04:04 PM
E Pluribus Unum, excellent Dai-Tenshi. It is too bad that we don't focus on that as a nation. Hell we even have good old Al Gore-leonni mis-quoting that as "Out of one, many" to help muddy the waters.

Bolverk
8th January 04, 04:07 PM
Kingston, here are a couple of sources on the subject. The first is well documented and the second is and article from Issues & Views.

An interesting source on the subject of Black Slave Owners (http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm)

An article on the subject. (http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/1006/article/1091)

Osiris
8th January 04, 04:45 PM
"Osiris, I never once suggested that the number of Black Slave owners was equal to the number of White Slave owners. However, a significant number of Blacks did own slaves. In fact a greater percentage of Blacks as a population owned slaves when compared to the white population, but the reasons varied for Slave ownership among Blacks. So why do people ignore this fact? It is a matter of history, but it is never taught."

They dont. A few prominent blacks owned and worked slaves. However, the majority merely bought their families.

"The dehumanazation of an entire race? I don't think so. There have definately been some blights on the history of this nation in relation to the way Black were treated, and in some periods Blacks have even been dehumanized, though to suggest that is the case today is a stretch of the imagination."

Im not saying that this continues, but that the impact is still felt.

"The Irish also suffered this in their history, though obviously for not the same length of time. Today, I would gladly invite either race to my house for dinner and a movie."

Whats your point? It wasnt as recent or as long. Also, the Irish-whatever population is going to blend in to a degree as opposed to being blatantly Irish. You can spot a black man from a mile away making discrimination so much easier.

"The real tragedy is that slavery is used as a wedge between whites and blacks to this very day. Not in the sense of dehumanization, but as a means to divide and conquer. There is no good reason to allow people to put a wedge between us. We have suffered many common problems, and we should use it as a means to bring us together, not to widen the gulf. We are perpetuating the problem, not solving it. This very fact can be seen in the tone of your response, and how you marginalize the fact that some Blacks were slave owners."

Of course Im marginalizing that fact. It's a very few blacks that youre talking about. The white south on the other hand was a slave society. Their economic success revolved around the institution of slavery. After slavery, they engaged in terroristic actions against the black sommunity. Government sponsered assasinations and terrorism continued up until just a few decades ago. And you seriously try to say that a few blacks owning slaves is somehow comperable to several hundred years of oppression? Can you be that fucking stupid?